[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[Estebonrober]

I'm repetitive about economics, but one should follow the money to see the real causes and effects of the unequal distribution of power:

The Black-White Wage Gap Is as Big as It Was in 1950​

Eehhhh…

Yea I'm more concerned about economic growth of minorities and the ending of redlining financial and literal then I am about defunding the police.

 

[Takhisis]

This whole entire premise can be flipped on its head and be even more true. Evolution made us altruistic, humble, pitiful, and compassionate. These are thing sthat cannot be rid of and deserve to be promoted relentlessly. The animal within is a garbage response from someone who can no longer hold merit in the "debate". Honestly this is a very similar argument that was coming from the South before the great American Slavery War.

The way is the golden rule. Live up to that and consensus is always achievable.

We eventually evolved into formulating Popper's paradox.

 

[Joij21]

So if I’m understanding this right, are you actually literally advocating for the extermination of minorities to make the nation one?

No, I'm saying if you want to get rid of white supremacists you'll have to kill them. Also if they wanted to silence you, they would have to do the vice versa. There is no peaceful solution.

This whole entire premise can be flipped on its head and be even more true. Evolution made us altruistic, humble, pitiful, and compassionate. These are thing sthat cannot be rid of and deserve to be promoted relentlessly. The animal within is a garbage response from someone who can no longer hold merit in the "debate". Honestly this is a very similar argument that was coming from the South before the great American Slavery War.

The way is the golden rule. Live up to that and consensus is always achievable.

And yet weren't you one of the people here claiming that we are far past a peaceful solution? Seems hypocritical that only now do you believe in making compromise with cops. As a matter of fact you were one of the people here dogpiling on about how an armed revolution is now necessary to get rid of police oppression.

 

[Estebonrober]

No, I'm saying if you want to get rid of white supremacists you'll have to kill them. Also if they wanted to silence you, they would have to do the vice versa. There is no peaceful solution.



And yet weren't you one of the people here claiming that we are far past a peaceful solution? Seems hypocritical that only now do you believe in making compromise with cops. As a matter of fact you were one of the people here dogpiling on about how an armed revolution is now necessary to get rid of police oppression.

Yea I won't deny I'm torn on the matter, but I try most of the time to be optimistic. I fail from time to time.

 

[Takhisis]

No, I'm saying if you want to get rid of white supremacists you'll have to kill them. Also if they wanted to silence you, they would have to do the vice versa. There is no peaceful solution.

There's jails and also psychotherapy.

 

[Joij21]

Yea I won't deny I'm torn on the matter, but I try most of the time to be optimistic. I fail from time to time.

At some point you have to realize that if someone is trying to kill you then there is no other way.

There's jails and also psychotherapy.

Which don't work. They can just lie that they're cured to get out of the program and go back to old ways. People can't change when they're adults, only children can. The exception being traumatic experience or brain injury.

 

[Seon]

Well, I did say consensus with racists and their allies is impossible because their positions are predicated upon the notion that consensus is dumb, but I’m not sure how it jumped from there to “all consensus is only possible with members of own tribe and bloodshed is the only solution.”

 

[Sommerswerd]

At this point I see very little chance of the protesting/rioting dying down before November, and if D'ump and the GOP steal the election it will likely become a full scale revolt. Only a proper appeal from the president can quell this now, and D'ump is incapable of providing that.

If the police manage to stop abusing people nationwide, they might be able to get things to subside, but if they keep providing the police-brutality du-jour every other week, then no... the protests will continue. The other thing that is going on is states are trying to reopen. If that continues and the Governors try to just muscle through any COVID resurgences (as DeSantis appears to be trying to do in Florida), then I expect that may have some impact on reducing the protests as people go back to work, and back to play.

I can also see Trump using the combination of the protests and COVID to try and suspend the election, but with thousands of people already in the streets protesting, that could just create more protesting and even rioting, so I'm less confident that he would try that then I was before the protests.

I have to admit that I am curious if the ongoing protests are starting to make the police think twice about their abusive tactics.

You brought it up and you keep blaming others for going off topic.

No. The way this particular conversation started between the two of us was when you brought up the Klan in post #2564 and I responded. You brought them up, so don't try to blame it on me. Whenever I am in a discussion with people and they start complaining about my profession and accusing me of using my profession against them, I always know that is the point where they have realized that my argument is correct, they can't refute it and they are bitter/frustrated about it. It's essentially the equivalent of getting dunked on and complaining... "Hey no fair! You're a pro!"

In any case, while I don't expect the victims of collateral damage to be happy or accepting about it, I also don't accept the premise that any collateral damage in a righteous cause makes the cause no better than any other cause that has caused harm. But I guess I should back up and ask a more fundamental question and give you an opportunity to answer. Do you actually even consider the underlying issue of these protests ending police brutality/abuse, defunding the police, BLM, etc., to be a righteous cause?

 

[Joij21]

Well, I did say consensus with racists and their allies is impossible because their positions are predicated upon the notion that consensus is dumb, but I’m not sure how it jumped from there to “all consensus is only possible with members of own tribe and bloodshed is the only solution.”

Because the same thing happens to most debates. Usually consensus in debates is only ever achieved if the group already had a pre-existing stance that was already in line with everyone else at the debate. Conflicting stances almost never end up in consensus by the end unless the other side happens to be a complete push-over. However push-overs are usually ignorant people who don't know why they are debating, hence why they always concede. So what happens is most people don't want to be labeled "the push-over" in order to avoid looking ignorant and lose credibility/pride. When that happens the debate devolves into an endless back and forth that goes nowhere.

In other words peaceful resolution can only happen in a group of like minded individuals. But usually at that point why even have a debate if everyone in the group already agrees? Hence why debate is pointless even at the point where there is complete civility.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Because the same thing happens to most debates. Usually consensus in debates is only ever achieved if the group already had a pre-existing stance that was already in line with everyone else at the debate. Conflicting stances almost never end up in consensus by the end unless the other side happens to be a complete push-over. However push-overs are usually ignorant people who don't know why they are debating, hence why they always concede. So what happens is most people don't want to be labeled "the push-over" in order to avoid looking ignorant and lose credibility/pride. When that happens the debate devolves into an endless back and forth that goes nowhere.

In other words peaceful resolution can only happen in a group of like minded individuals. But usually at that point why even have a debate if everyone in the group already agrees? Hence why debate is pointless even at the point where there is complete civility.

Because fine points are always open to disagreement and debate. Peaceful resolution cannot function across gross incongruities. Debating nuances of freedom of speech with the klan, for example, is pointless.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I don't know if it's possible to defend the KKK's "right to speech and assembly" without causing harm to minorities.

At some point it becomes a matter of priorities; do we seek to help the abuser or the abused? I side with the latter, unfortunately some the former being just as deserving, which is grossly incorrect, not just historically but factually.

We have to ask ourselves; do we want to help the entirety of minority groups or do we want to defend the free speech of their opressors? If you side with their opressors, don't expect to be spared from the blowback, you deserve just as much ire as them and are complicit in their suffering by enabling their opressors and running defense for them.

 

[Takhisis]

I don't know if it's possible to defend the KKK's "right to speech and assembly" without causing harm to minorities.

---->

Popper's paradox.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

---->

I guess what annoys me is that people in this thread and others, think somehow if we don't defend the Klan or other groups marching, intimidating others, spreading lies and bile that somehow we're going down this slippery path to censorship; the material harm created by these bigots is worse than anyone being censored for views that are no longer acceptable.

To compare the two as being of equal detriment to society is offensive and dehumanizes minorities whilst uplifting the vague notion of free speech, which doesn't actually exist even before entertaining the notion of getting rid of hate speech laws. Like, if the free speech absolutist zealots want to sacrifice black people and other minorities to the altar of their free speech god so that society can remain in this time capsule then go ahead, but what they're doing is reinforcing and continuing bigotry; not ending it and certainly not allowing for any change.

They should be called vigorously out for it, have the real world consequences rubbed in their faces; they have no problem claiming that our positions are enabling censorship, even though ours has actual victims with actual names and actual bodies in actual graves, theirs are purely hypothetical and i'm tired of being asked to consider their arguments as being just as valid when the real world consequences of allowing bigotry to continue and spread are plain to see.

Free speech absolutists offer no hope, nothing to minorities because they facilitate their oppression by allowing bigotry to continue under the guise of "free speech". They claim it's a mere "difference of opinion" over whether or not a black or asian or hispanic or gay or trans or muslim person should have the same rights and being treated exactly the same by society and it's institutions in terms of not being discriminated against on the basis of who and what they are, as a white or cis or christian or straight person would and if you don't agree then we and you, have major problems and you more than likely have some issues to work through. It's a no-brainer, the answer should always be to affirm minorities.

 

[innonimatu]

At some point you have to realize that if someone is trying to kill you then there is no other way.

Which don't work. They can just lie that they're cured to get out of the program and go back to old ways. People can't change when they're adults, only children can. The exception being traumatic experience or brain injury.

What a bleak vision of humanity. Of course people can change. If they didn't society would be static because the young ones are educated by the old ones. Racism would never end. Or, inversely and going further back, would never have started. Etc.

 

[AmazonQueen]

What a bleak vision of humanity. Of course people can change. If they didn't society would be static because the young ones are educated by the old ones. Racism would never end. Or, inversely and going further back, would never have started. Etc.

I know lots of people my age (55) or older whose views have changed on race and other issues over the years. They may not have changed as much as younger people would like but they have changed. Views that were commonplace in the '70-80s are now widely seen as unacceptable by people who grew up with those views.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I know lots of people my age (55) or older whose views have changed on race and other issues over the years. They may not have changed as much as younger people would like but they have changed. Views that were commonplace in the '70-80s are now widely seen as unacceptable by people who grew up with those views.

When I was growing up in Ireland my entire neighborhood was white. So were my schools and church. Now granted, I grew up in a home regime reminiscent of North Korea, but I did know that people of colour existed. I never had the opportunity to interact with a person of colour until I went to university in Canada. I admit that I was awkward at first as I had been conditioned from birth that those of colour were inferior. Thankfully my attitudes changed very quickly once I was exposed to other cultures and peoples, and I realize just how racist and intolerant my parents and their friends were. Indeed, even the people in my neighborhood were like that for the most part.

I sometimes think to myself, knowing that my life is richer now because of diversity, how much did I miss when I was young? And if I could change my world view, why can't others?

 

[aelf]

I know what won't change their minds: Entertaining their arguments on the internet for years and years.

If they are going to be changed, it will be through real life experiences. And if they threaten you, fight back. Having 'civil' discussions doesn't really do anything.

 

[red_elk]

Views that were commonplace in the '70-80s are now widely seen as unacceptable by people who grew up with those views.

Were these views part of education system back then?
I grew up in the 80-s and was taught that "all people are equal" is a non-discussable axiom. Dividing them by skin color is wrong by definition.
Hence I consider as wrong not only ordinary racism (which is obvious) but also things like racial quotas and affirmative action.

 

[Crezth]

Were these views part of education system back then?
I grew up in the 80-s and was taught that "all people are equal" is a non-discussable axiom. Dividing them by skin color is wrong by definition.
Hence I consider as wrong not only ordinary racism (which is obvious) but also things like racial quotas and affirmative action.

Yeah, to be honest it is funny how quickly the civil rights legacy became “all people are equal, just some people - according to how virtuous they are - have more money and come from richer communities than others.”

 

[AmazonQueen]

Were these views part of education system back then?
I grew up in the 80-s and was taught that "all people are equal" is a non-discussable axiom. Dividing them by skin color is wrong by definition.
Hence I consider as wrong not only ordinary racism (which is obvious) but also things like racial quotas and affirmative action.

UK education system hardly mentioned race at all.
We read "To Kill a Mockingbird" and discussed the US race problem a little but never considered our own even though, for example, the Brixton Riots occurred when I was at school.