Racism definition & use - Page 11 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15151910
The Capitol rioters, on the other hand, were openly supported by Trump and police.

And while the rioters are getting charged, this faction of the GOP is vast enough and strong enough to seriously threaten the party if they decide to split off.


Around 10 to 15 officers were under investigation for their actions during the riot. An officer took selfies with the pro-Trump mob who had broken into the building and another officer put on a MAGA hat and guided the rioters around. They were immediately suspended. Obviously, dozens of officers joined the mob and encouraged their riotous behavior. Seven off-duty transit police officers in Philadelphia attended the Trump rally preceding the attack on the Capitol.

https://www.dw.com/en/2-us-capitol-poli ... a-56198919
#15151915
If anyone feels I am repeating things that do not add to the conversation, I invite them to report me to moderation. I believe there is a rule against spamming threads that would apply.

—————————

So we already looked at the difference between the riot by racist Trump supporters and the riots this summer in terms of government support.

We saw that another difference was that the Capitol riot was planned while the others were spontaneous reactions to ongoing police racism and brutality.

So we need to look at intent. In the summer riots, there was no intent except in those cases where riots were intentionally started by white supremacists for the purposes of igniting a race war. The racists want the race war to start, while people subjected to racism want the conflict to end.

Simply saying that both sides riot ignores this important nuance.
By wat0n
#15151923
Pants-of-dog wrote:So we already looked at the difference between the riot by racist Trump supporters and the riots this summer in terms of government support.


What would that be exactly?

Pants-of-dog wrote:We saw that another difference was that the Capitol riot was planned while the others were spontaneous reactions to ongoing police racism and brutality.


So events like CHAZ, where armed goons took over a Seattle neighborhood, were unplanned? Those who faced with law enforcement already carrying all the implements and using the tactics necessary to that effect had no previous plans to do so? :eh:

Pants-of-dog wrote:So we need to look at intent. In the summer riots, there was no intent except in those cases where riots were intentionally started by white supremacists for the purposes of igniting a race war. The racists want the race war to start, while people subjected to racism want the conflict to end.

Simply saying that both sides riot ignores this important nuance.


That's not the real difference in intent. The difference is that, over the summer, the rioters' intent was a mix of opportunism (for looters at least) and an attempt to intimidate the respective governments into enacting policing reforms they wanted. The Capitol insurgents' intent on the other hand wanted to intimidate the Federal government into overturning the results of a Presidential election their candidate lost fair and square.

The Capitol insurgents' intent was indeed a lot worse than those of the summer rioters. But that low standard of comparison does not excuse either party.
#15151926
CHAZ and BLM are not the same thing. If CHAz needs to be invoked in a discussion about BLM, it is an implicit admission that there is no evidence concerning BLM.

And if there is an argument about rioters intentionally rioting in order to force policing changes, then evidence needs to be provided to support said argument.
By wat0n
#15151933
Pants-of-dog wrote:CHAZ and BLM are not the same thing. If CHAz needs to be invoked in a discussion about BLM, it is an implicit admission that there is no evidence concerning BLM.


CHAZ is an example of a more radical approach to BLM.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And if there is an argument about rioters intentionally rioting in order to force policing changes, then evidence needs to be provided to support said argument.


What are the goals of people who are on record supporting rioting as means to an end like Ms Atkins?
#15151942
I think the question of whether or not one description of support for looters can be reasonably interpreted as a deliberate plan to use rioting to force political change is not that relevant to US society.

The issue of how the GOP is going to address the fact that literally millions of their supporters openly support racism seems more important.
By wat0n
#15151949
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think the question of whether or not one description of support for looters can be reasonably interpreted as a deliberate plan to use rioting to force political change is not that relevant to US society.


I find it hard to see otherwise when some activists are saying rioting is just a means to ending police brutality.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The issue of how the GOP is going to address the fact that literally millions of their supporters openly support racism seems more important.


That's one thing we can agree on. But it doesn't end there, as there's the issue on how can Biden deliver on his desire for unity in the current environment where identity politics has become exacerbated.
#15151991
Pants-of-dog wrote:Another major thing that your metaphor misses is that people of colour are not attacking anyone. Any violence on our side is defensive. Even the riots against police are a reaction to ongoing violence.

I don't disagree with this.

I'm also not making a metaphor. There's a real conflict going on, I'm simply describing it.

This is another reason why the war metaphor is so bad: it implies that both sides have equal access to power and violence when the reality is that one side has almost all the access while the other side does not.

It doesn't assume that at all. You're making your own implications. The Rebel Alliance did not have equal access to power and violence vs the Empire in Star Wars. They were fighting a war against an evil oppressor that was far more powerful.

What's happening isn't any different than how most civil wars start. Most civil wars and internal conflicts surround issues of identity or nationalism where a minority group feels they're being unfairly oppressed by the more powerful majority. IRA vs Britain, Shia vs Sunni, Hutu vs Tutsi, Pakistan/Bangladesh vs India, Punjabi's vs India, Scotland vs England, Quebec vs English Canada etc.
#15152001
Some of you guys are being purposefully belligerent and dishonest. There was never support for RIOTING. The support was for PROTESTING.

The BLM protests were 100% legitimate and saying that it was rioting that was the main focus, is just a big fat lie.

Granted, you might find one or two idiots who say rioting was getting things done, but they're pretty worthless people.

The protest at the Capitol building was fine up until they started to enter the Capitol building illegally with the GOAL of disrupting the democratic process.

Yes, as @Pants-of-dog has said 100 times, their motivation is important.
Last edited by Godstud on 22 Jan 2021 01:25, edited 1 time in total.
#15152003
Unthinking Majority wrote:I'm also not making a metaphor. There's a real conflict going on, I'm simply describing it.


Oh. If that is the case, then using the word “war” is factually incorrect instead of just a bad metaphor.

It doesn't assume that at all. You're making your own implications. The Rebel Alliance did not have equal access to power and violence vs the Empire in Star Wars. They were fighting a war against an evil oppressor that was far more powerful.


This is hopefully a badly made metaphor and you are not literally arguing that people of colour dealing with racism are the Rebel Alliance.

I could deconstruct how the Rebel alliance is nothing like BIPOC people today. Most of the reasons would simply be repetitions of why the war metaphor is bad, or why the argument is incorrect, if it is not a metaphor.

What's happening isn't any different than how most civil wars start. Most civil wars and internal conflicts surround issues of identity or nationalism where a minority group feels they're being unfairly oppressed by the more powerful majority. IRA vs Britain, Shia vs Sunni, Hutu vs Tutsi, Pakistan/Bangladesh vs India, Punjabi's vs India, Scotland vs England, Quebec vs English Canada etc.


And since BIPOC people are less oppressed than they were in the 60s and they did not start a civil war then, it is illogical to assume they will start one now.

The only people interested in a war that breaks along racial lines are the white nationalists. They are the ones who identify as “ a minority group [that] feels they're being unfairly oppressed by the more powerful majority”. The majority, in this case, is the oppressive Establishment made up of BIPOC people, LGBTQ+ people, other minorities that are still underrepresented in all positions of power, the media, et cetera.

Someone else earlier claimed that “ identity politics has become exacerbated”. This is true, for white nationalists. The ongoing change in demographics is making it so that mire and more white people identify as a racial group suffering from unfair disadvantages.
#15152018
Pants-of-dog wrote:Supporting looters after the fact is not the same as the riots intentionally designed to subvert democracy and support a racist government.

The truth is I understand the motivations of the people on both sides (that certainly doesn't mean I agree with them). I support the protests, and also get the rage. I get the riots. Black people are being victimized in the streets, and seeing people of your race constantly mistreated and/or being a victim yourself would make anyone very angry. Riots are when anger turns to rage.

I can assure you the Capital rioters legit think they're victims too. They believe Trump's lies when he says the election was stolen. These people are conspiracy nuts, they legit believe this stuff to the core even without evidence because they aren't smart enough to know what critical thinking is. Why would a person storm the capital? It's because they fully believe this election was stolen from them by "corrupt Democrats", and so they're angry, & they brought guns and vests and went to "take back their country" (in their own minds). They were shouting "1776!!" because they literally think they're patriots fighting tyranny. The path to evil is filled with good intentions. Trump conned them hard & they bought it.

Again, just because I understand their motivations doesn't mean I agree with anything they did. Hitler thought the Germans were victims too. Victims of western reparations and failed western capitalism run by "the Jews", who he blamed. So he murdered 6 million of them and attacked Europe. He literally thought he was the saviour of the German people and so did a lot of Germans. The path to evil is paved with good intentions. And obviously I certainly don't agree with anything Hitler did. It's scary that these neo-Nazi nutbars do, because they're stupid and ignorant backwoods rednecks buying into fear & hate & a victim narrative.
#15152020
Godstud wrote:Some of you guys are being purposefully belligerent and dishonest. There was never support for RIOTING. The support was for PROTESTING.

The BLM protests were 100% legitimate and saying that it was rioting that was the main focus, is just a big fat lie.

Granted, you might find one or two idiots who say rioting was getting things done, but they're pretty worthless people.

The protest at the Capitol building was fine up until they started to enter the Capitol building illegally with the GOAL of disrupting the democratic process.

Yes, as @Pants-of-dog has said 100 times, their motivation is important.


You said: The protest at the Capitol building was fine up until they started to enter the Capitol building

I say BLM protests were fine until they looted and burned the neighborhoods. In both instances violence is wrong.

"CNN’s Omar Jimenez reported live from Kenosha in front of burning businesses while a chyron described the scene as “fiery but mostly peaceful protests.” The narrative “buildings burn at peaceful protest” is Orwellian doublethink in action."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 675343002/

You will now say I am a racist for stating a fact.
#15152022
Unthinking Majority wrote:The truth is I understand the motivations of the people on both sides (that certainly doesn't mean I agree with them). I support the protests, and also get the rage. I get the riots. Black people are being victimized in the streets, and seeing people of your race constantly mistreated and/or being a victim yourself would make anyone very angry. Riots are when anger turns to rage.

I can assure you the Capital rioters legit think they're victims too. They believe Trump's lies when he says the election was stolen. These people are conspiracy nuts, they legit believe this stuff to the core even without evidence because they aren't smart enough to know what critical thinking is. Why would a person storm the capital? It's because they fully believe this election was stolen from them by "corrupt Democrats", and so they're angry, & they brought guns and vests and went to "take back their country" (in their own minds). They were shouting "1776!!" because they literally think they're patriots fighting tyranny. The path to evil is filled with good intentions. Trump conned them hard & they bought it.

Again, just because I understand their motivations doesn't mean I agree with anything they did. Hitler thought the Germans were victims too. Victims of western reparations and failed western capitalism run by "the Jews", who he blamed. So he murdered 6 million of them and attacked Europe. He literally thought he was the saviour of the German people and so did a lot of Germans. The path to evil is paved with good intentions. And obviously I certainly don't agree with anything Hitler did. It's scary that these neo-Nazi nutbars do, because they're stupid and ignorant backwoods rednecks buying into fear & hate & a victim narrative.



Racism is real and some cops have killed black men. BTW, they have killed more whites than blacks. However, the narrative is that the reason some black minorities are disenfranchised is the KKK, the Proud Boys, the Nazis, and the racist cops. The truth is: That sort of racism does not even crack the top 50 reasons as to why some poor minorities are disenfranchised?
Last edited by Julian658 on 22 Jan 2021 02:48, edited 1 time in total.
By wat0n
#15152023
Godstud wrote:Some of you guys are being purposefully belligerent and dishonest. There was never support for RIOTING. The support was for PROTESTING.

The BLM protests were 100% legitimate and saying that it was rioting that was the main focus, is just a big fat lie.

Granted, you might find one or two idiots who say rioting was getting things done, but they're pretty worthless people.

The protest at the Capitol building was fine up until they started to enter the Capitol building illegally with the GOAL of disrupting the democratic process.

Yes, as @Pants-of-dog has said 100 times, their motivation is important.


I would say that it's disingenuous to claim there was "no support for rioting". In reality, yes, there were and still are those who believe rioting is a legitimate tool to accomplish things (I provided one such example) which is why they participate in them (up to this day), even if most people who participated in both the events over the summer and the Capitol didn't take part in the violence. Neither BLM nor Trumpists are monolithic groups.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Someone else earlier claimed that “ identity politics has become exacerbated”. This is true, for white nationalists. The ongoing change in demographics is making it so that mire and more white people identify as a racial group suffering from unfair disadvantages.


Why don't you just call me by my nickname? :lol:

I would not say identity politics was as exacerbated in the 1960s as it currently is because there were other ideological options at the time provided by the left (from Marxism to color blindness) and, as you said, because there were few Whites identifying as being part of a victimized group.
#15152033
:roll: I never said the protest in favour of Trump was the problem. I only stated that the entry into the Capitol building was(i.e. the riot/insurrection). You are trying to conflate the two in a very very dishonest manner. Thankfully, I am used to such doublespeak from your ilk.


Note: Riots were not indicative of BLM. There were a great many protests that did not have riots. The reason for the protests was a factually legitimate. There is systemic racism. There is, however, no electoral fraud.

Julian658 wrote:You will now say I am a racist for stating a fact.
Yes, you are a victim. Can you whine any louder? Maybe you can cry some salty tears and rant about how you are victimized for saying stupid racist things most of the time? C'mon. You can do it.
#15152058
I do not think identity politics is increasing except among white people and those groups whose identity is only being accepted now, like trans people.

Most minorities are not increasing their participation in identity politics as far as I can tell. This seems to be a myth. It may be true, but the evidence seems weak at best. It is often brought up by conservatives as a whataboutism or as some sort of leftist version of bigotry.

What minorities are increasingly doing is participating equally in society, helping to frame the debate, and filling positions of power. This challenges white supremacy and hegemony, which in turn threatens white people. Those white people without marketable skills probably feel even more threatened. And this in turn creates more identity politics like the racism that Trump surfed to power on.
#15152061
Julian658 wrote:Racism is real and some cops have killed black men. BTW, they have killed more whites than blacks. However, the narrative is that the reason some black minorities are disenfranchised is the KKK, the Proud Boys, the Nazis, and the racist cops. The truth is: That sort of racism does not even crack the top 50 reasons as to why some poor minorities are disenfranchised?

Well there's certainly more reasons than just racist cops, but they're still a big problem if people are arrested or jailed when white people might not be in similar circumstances.

People generally get angry when others treat them unfairly.
#15152064
I agree Whites are the ones who are (probably) the subgroup where participation in identity politics has experienced he greatest growth by far. But it's not just a matter on how many take part in it but in how far things are taken to.

For instance, concepts like "colorblindness" are now being regarded as undesirable by both racists and anti-racists alike regardless of the race/ethnicity of those involved, even though it has the virtue of "de-binarizing" the debates around race. That was definitely not the case a few decades ago. The fact that a substantial number of Whites is adopting a form of identity politics centered on victimhood is also relevant in its own right - having two opposing sides regarding each as being victims is the recipe for deadlock.

Furthermore, we are also experiencing some multipliers that also help to exacerbate these issues. One of them is the rise of social media, which makes it possible to communicate with a lot of people in real time almost anywhere (for the first time in human history for that matter), helps to spread all the identity-centered ideologies along with making it easy to engage in moral grandstanding and the current format which punishes long posts makes it hard to add some nuance to any claims (because nuanced arguments are usually long), thereby extending and exacerbating identity politics (and extremism in general). Another is the current wave of irrationalism that is currently invading Western societies, which is a separate problem in its own right and allows people to come up with all sorts of ridiculous beliefs (e.g. conspiracy theorists of all stripes, flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, etc). At last, we're also experiencing a labor-replacing automation that naturally has some large short and medium term costs for any society, even if it's necessary for its long-term economic development.

If I had to make a parallel to the past, the best one would not be the Civil Rights Movement. The best one would be more like the European romantic nationalism of the 19th century, which also took the form of an exacerbated identity politics not seen since the Wars of Religion of the 16th and 17th centuries. The 19th century also saw, as a result of the first wave of the Industrial Revolution, both labor-replacing automation of many jobs (some of which would disappear throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries) and a greater access to cheaper communications owing to the much lower costs of print texts (a result of industrialization of printing); and also saw its own wave of irrationalism in the form of Romanticism and a pushback against the rationality advocated by the Enlightenment. And yes, this was an example of exacerbated White identity politics as well.
#15152069
wat0n wrote:I agree Whites are the ones who are (probably) the subgroup where participation in identity politics has experienced he greatest growth by far. But it's not just a matter on how many take part in it but in how far things are taken to.

I think there's a ton of identity politics everywhere by seemingly everyone. On the left you have intersectionalism and anti-patriarchy feminism and microagressions and gender/race quotas everywhere and #OscarsSoWhite/#MeToo/#WhitePrivilege and all that stuff (a lot of which was started by white people too), then on the right it's a lot of anti-immigrant and white nationalist stuff and people just generally being dicks.

It's really just a power struggle. Some people are like "take down those racist Confederate statues" and then racists are like "no" so then they pull them down themselves, and then the neo-nazis are like "eff you, let's march in Charlottesville" and then some people on left say "no, eff you racists we're going to form Antifa" and then it all goes to hell lol.
#15152126
Unthinking Majority wrote:Well there's certainly more reasons than just racist cops, but they're still a big problem if people are arrested or jailed when white people might not be in similar circumstances.

People generally get angry when others treat them unfairly.

I agree! Cops in America are poorly trained and very violent. A study by Roland G, Fryer demonstrated blacks are subject to a rough treatment by cops more often than whites. However, the rate of being killed by a cop was similar.

An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force
Citation:
Roland G. Fryer J. An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force. Journal of Political Economy. Forthcoming.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/publi ... -use-force

The Proud Boys types have no power to influence one way or another the life of disenfranchised people. They owe nothing and are just a group of hooligans. They are not Nike, Amazon, Google, etc. They are not the local all democrat government that has been in power for over five decades.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 44
Election 2020

Name something specifically wrong with any of t[…]

@Rancid , March 2nd is Texas Independence Day, a […]

Atheism is Evil

One of the more common arguments repeated b atheis[…]

Ampoules with atropine (an antidote for chemical w[…]