Author Topic: Protestors vs. Rioters  (Read 10273 times)

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #400 on: June 24, 2020, 01:41:41 PM »
Quote
Someone I know IRL has a sign in his neighborhood publicly posted that reads "Silence is violence." Once you go down that road, all you need to do is not be an abolitionist and you're on the Evil Scale.

Did you ask him what he meant with that sign?  My first thought is that he might have meant that by not speaking out (he didn't advocate or say he was ok with violence), you are tacitly endorsing the violence that is taking place against blacks.  Maybe not, but you have apparently already formed an opinion.  What do you think he means?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #401 on: June 24, 2020, 01:42:35 PM »
You cannot reason with a mob, nor should you ever ascribe reason to a mob. That doesn't mean there aren't good reasons the mob formed. Injustice, or economic inequality, or corruption in politics; these things can eat away at public morale, until it cracks. The vector of the breakdown may be a specific topic, but that doesn't mean it's the full cause. Not to gaslight the specifics of the objections to police brutality, since I'm essentially in agreement with those objections, but anytime we are dealing with a mob mentality a new problem has entered the room.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #402 on: June 24, 2020, 01:46:44 PM »
Quote
Someone I know IRL has a sign in his neighborhood publicly posted that reads "Silence is violence." Once you go down that road, all you need to do is not be an abolitionist and you're on the Evil Scale.

Did you ask him what he meant with that sign?  My first thought is that he might have meant that by not speaking out (he didn't advocate or say he was ok with violence), you are tacitly endorsing the violence that is taking place against blacks.  Maybe not, but you have apparently already formed an opinion.  What do you think he means?

"Has" was perhaps misleading; "there is a sign in his neighborhood" might be clearer. The meaning is not 100% clear to parse, but his interpretation (and mine, for the moment) is that it means something like "if you are not part of the movement then you are not only part of the problem, but a violent perpetrator, and violence is justifiably met with violence." It sounds to me like it's equating disagreement with violence (a variation on the 'safe' culture in universities, where disagreement makes people feel physically threatened) and therefore alluding to a threat (against those who are silent). It's also likely a motte and bailey situation, where if asked the sign maker would claim it just means "you're hurting us by being silent", which is not exactly an outrageous claim, but where the hidden meaning is "when we come for you don't say you didn't deserve it."

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #403 on: June 24, 2020, 01:48:40 PM »
Seems a bit like you're reading a lot into a little.

[Edit to add]: I was just looking at a web article about protests and this image was at the top.  She doesn't look violent to me.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2020, 01:53:48 PM by Kasandra »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #404 on: June 24, 2020, 01:57:52 PM »
Seems a bit like you're reading a lot into a little.

[Edit to add]: I was just looking at a web article about protests and this image was at the top.  She doesn't look violent to me.

No one does, until they do. And hey, I can come up with a slogan too: "tacitly supporting violence is violence." Maybe she won't personally burn down someone's shop, but maybe she'll stand by while others do.

I'm not actually trying to impugn her, btw, just using the logic being displayed in the other direction.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #405 on: June 24, 2020, 02:13:56 PM »
Is Davy Crockett known exclusively for his role in a) fighting for slavery and b) committing literal treason against the USA as is Lee, or is he known primarily for other things?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #406 on: June 25, 2020, 09:44:18 AM »
Also in terms of subverting the purpose of things, as Hitler as already been brought up. We could use the concentration camps as an exemplar of this. They're currently being preserved as a reminder of how terrible the Nazis were. By the logic being exercised in this thread, they should instead be viewed as monuments to the Nazi's that should be destroyed post haste before anyone decides to follow in their footsteps.
I don't think anybody ever responded to this, but since I have seen this type of comparison pop up a few times recently, it's worth a discussion.

Germany has kept the court room at Nuremberg as a 'museum'.  There are multimedia presentations of the atrocities. There is graphic video.  There is an acceptance of the shame of what was done.  There is not a single statue of a nazi to be seen.  There is nothing that could in any way be considered 'honour' or even an apologetic for anybody involved, including foot soldiers.

Now let's talk about concentration camps. Again, there is not a single statue or monument depicting a nazi. Not a single one.  What you will see are statues and monuments to the victims.  Monuments that depict their suffering, the horror, and yes, their strength and resistance.  All statues of those involved in perpetrating the horrors of the Shoah have been destroyed.

If you want an equivalency, then let's talk about the actual concentration camps in the USA - the slave markets and the plantations.  What would be equivalent would be to convert those plantations and markets as museums honouring the millions killed and enslaved.  Each plantation should prominently display statues and monuments to the victims and survivors of the holocaust perpetrated in the USA.  And they should maintain no representations of those responsible for the crimes, except in the descriptions of their wrongdoings.  These plantations would be maintained as shrines and museums in perpetuity.

That would be the comparison you were trying to make.

But let's be honest.  The USA has never fully accepted the responsibility for what was done to those people, and almost nobody in the south wants to actually remember that shame in a way equivalent to what Germany does; whereas many, many are addicted to the pride they associate with the confederacy.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #407 on: June 25, 2020, 11:18:21 AM »
But let's be honest.  The USA has never fully accepted the responsibility for what was done to those people, and almost nobody in the south wants to actually remember that shame in a way equivalent to what Germany does; whereas many, many are addicted to the pride they associate with the confederacy.

Here's where the comparison breaks down. The reason WWII shocked the world and continues to be the Godwin gold standard is because of the sheer newness of what the Nazis did: a combination of social re-organizing, industrial level (and style) murder, and efficiency being the ethic stamped on all of it. This was not just another war, and it has left its mark. The people there were made to feel ashamed, for better or worse, because of the incredible horror that broke the history books and invented a new kind of boogeyman. Let's call them innovators, to be morbid.

Slavery in the U.S., however, was the continuation of a historic and standard practice across much of the world, going back to Ancient Rome and Greece and beyond that. There were times and places that didn't have it, and many that did, and the U.S.'s fault lies mostly in that they were the last great nation I'm aware of to dispense with the practice. That is not good, and it's worth asking how it was maintained longer there than in, say, the English colonies (~30 years longer). Maybe there were special economics in play, I really don't know. Either way, the idea that the correct result of this is to see to it that the proper shame is inculcated in the South for this practice (which they inherited and grew up with) seems to me contrary to the spirit of reconciliation and healing. Granted, the danger in not doing that is in having the defeated side feel like slavery ended because they were bloodied, rather than because it was wrong. But even then you give it a few generations and that tends to take care of itself; anything more is punitive IMO.

And let's face it, the Nazis tried to take over the world and commit genocide, and many Germans at the time voted for them. No one in America ever voted to introduce slavery, it was already a way of life; and slavers didn't ever try to take over the world and commit genocide. So even if we agreed that 'recognition of the shame of it' was necessary, the comparison the Nazis isn't viable at this point in terms of what the shame is about. I see what you're saying about Confederate pride even to this day, but I'm not at all convinced that this is a celebration of slavery - at least not the way some would claim it is. It's no coincidence, actually, that Gone With the Wind is getting cancelled now, because it's a strong argument for there really being something to lament about the fall of the South in the Civil War, even though it was a historical inevitability. There are many things about the Confederacy that no doubt retain a nostalgic or romantic appeal, such as fighting against encroaching industrialism, the last breath of the great American aristocracy, etc etc, that people might cling to. The Alamo has been a popular tourist attraction over the years, and its "brave men, lost cause" thing has a huge romance attached to it; that mythos seems understandable on its own without needing to argue that Alamo fans are exclusively celebrating killing Mexicans. And yeah, probably some of them are just racists, too.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #408 on: June 25, 2020, 11:30:36 AM »
Reconciliation is usually partnered with "truth" - but that "truth" part was ignored in the USA.  Racism in the USA continued in such a way as to continue to subjugate blacks as much as legally possible (and even more than that) for generations after the confederacy was defeated.

It's not a matter of requiring "shame" - shame is a natural outcome of accepting what was done, but isn't necessary nor likely to continue in perpetuity.  But clearly, those who lynched, wrote Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegenation laws, sundown towns... there was no shame, there.  I don't say that people should feel shame today for what happened 150 years ago.  I'm just saying that the USA never significantly accepted responsibility, and certainly not in the same way as did Germany (which is where TheDaemon's post was bringing us)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #409 on: June 25, 2020, 11:49:41 AM »
Reconciliation is usually partnered with "truth" - but that "truth" part was ignored in the USA.  Racism in the USA continued in such a way as to continue to subjugate blacks as much as legally possible (and even more than that) for generations after the confederacy was defeated.

Wait, back that bus up a moment. I get the fixation on the Blacks as they are the single largest "wronged group" but it isn't just them that were historically wronged in the United States. So claiming that poor treatment of blacks in the rest of the country is directly linked to the practice of slavery is a extreme misnomer.

Quote
It's not a matter of requiring "shame" - shame is a natural outcome of accepting what was done, but isn't necessary nor likely to continue in perpetuity.  But clearly, those who lynched, wrote Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegenation laws, sundown towns... there was no shame, there.  I don't say that people should feel shame today for what happened 150 years ago.  I'm just saying that the USA never significantly accepted responsibility, and certainly not in the same way as did Germany (which is where TheDaemon's post was bringing us)

So how about the poor historical treatment of Chinese, Japanese, and other Asian immigrants? They were never enslaved in the United States, but the treatment the Chinese saw in particular came pretty close to it. Why is it just about the black people?

How about the poor historical treatment of the Native Americans? The USA had no history of enslaving them.

How about the poor historical treatment of Catholics? They were predominately Irish and Italian, both of which are white nationalities. Even better, the first indentured servants in the United States were Irish, English, and Scottish. (What morphed indentured servitude into slavery was a Free Black Man(one of the first 20 Africans in the colony of Virginia; who had gone through an indenture himself) getting a court to agree with him screwing over another black man. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/horrible-fate-john-casor-180962352/)

How about the poor historical treatment of Mormons? Oh right, they weren't enslaved.

How about the poor treatment of Jews in many parts of the country? Oh right, not enslaved.

How about the poor treatment of Eastern European immigrants(many of which were Catholic)? Oh right, not enslaved.

But Blacks? Oh yes, their poor treatment was entirely about their having been slaves.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #410 on: June 25, 2020, 12:02:55 PM »
We're still talking about how taking down (or rather, keeping) statues of Lee, Forrest, and Jackson is like Germany keeping Dachau as a museum, right?  Is that still your contention?

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #411 on: June 25, 2020, 12:07:29 PM »
Slavery in the U.S., however, was the continuation of a historic and standard practice across much of the world, going back to Ancient Rome and Greece and beyond that. There were times and places that didn't have it, and many that did, and the U.S.'s fault lies mostly in that they were the last great nation I'm aware of to dispense with the practice. That is not good, and it's worth asking how it was maintained longer there than in, say, the English colonies (~30 years longer). Maybe there were special economics in play, I really don't know. Either way, the idea that the correct result of this is to see to it that the proper shame is inculcated in the South for this practice (which they inherited and grew up with) seems to me contrary to the spirit of reconciliation and healing. Granted, the danger in not doing that is in having the defeated side feel like slavery ended because they were bloodied, rather than because it was wrong. But even then you give it a few generations and that tends to take care of itself; anything more is punitive IMO.

And let's face it, the Nazis tried to take over the world and commit genocide, and many Germans at the time voted for them. No one in America ever voted to introduce slavery, it was already a way of life; and slavers didn't ever try to take over the world and commit genocide. So even if we agreed that 'recognition of the shame of it' was necessary, the comparison the Nazis isn't viable at this point in terms of what the shame is about. I see what you're saying about Confederate pride even to this day, but I'm not at all convinced that this is a celebration of slavery - at least not the way some would claim it is. It's no coincidence, actually, that Gone With the Wind is getting cancelled now, because it's a strong argument for there really being something to lament about the fall of the South in the Civil War, even though it was a historical inevitability. There are many things about the Confederacy that no doubt retain a nostalgic or romantic appeal, such as fighting against encroaching industrialism, the last breath of the great American aristocracy, etc etc, that people might cling to. The Alamo has been a popular tourist attraction over the years, and its "brave men, lost cause" thing has a huge romance attached to it; that mythos seems understandable on its own without needing to argue that Alamo fans are exclusively celebrating killing Mexicans. And yeah, probably some of them are just racists, too.

Due to the collapse of the Roman Empire and the end of the wholesale slavery in Europe, there is little continuity between the trans-Atlantic slave trade and other slave-holding traditions in the Old World. So it's not really accurate to say it was a continuation of a global practice.

Slavery in the American South is notable for its on-going echoes in the society of a superpower and for the horrific war fought in an attempt to preserve it. While the slave-holding ideology was inherited from the Dutch, Portuguese, or British it was actively developed and maintained by Southern intellectuals. White Supremacy isn't something that the South (and the US generally) just have lying around but is actively fostered and encouraged to the benefit of specific interests..

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #412 on: June 25, 2020, 12:29:07 PM »
We're still talking about how taking down (or rather, keeping) statues of Lee, Forrest, and Jackson is like Germany keeping Dachau as a museum, right?  Is that still your contention?

If that's how you took it, you mis-understood the argument.

You keep the statues around, but probably not where they were, and instead move them into a museum or comparable type of venue where they can be presented in a context comparable to those locations.

That is far more preferable to simply destroying the statues.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #413 on: June 25, 2020, 12:34:37 PM »
If that's how you took it, you mis-understood the argument.

You keep the statues around, but probably not where they were, and instead move them into a museum or comparable type of venue where they can be presented in a context comparable to those locations.

That is far more preferable to simply destroying the statues.

Then you'll be in a constant fight with racists over restoring them to places of honor. Not to mention there's too many of the damn things and few have any artistic merit. Nor do museums necessarily want them. Most institutions have too many artifacts to display so making these statues available to the public has opportunity costs.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #414 on: June 25, 2020, 12:40:20 PM »
White Supremacy isn't something that the South (and the US generally) just have lying around but is actively fostered and encouraged to the benefit of specific interests..

Well there you've hit it. The problems in America IMO tend to be traceable to the political systems and power structures, and this is no different.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #415 on: June 25, 2020, 12:42:49 PM »
Not to mention that the statues have been designed to be triumphal.  Man holding a sword in victory, riding his mount, head held high and defiant.

What, would you paint a penis on his head, maybe replace the head of the statue with that of a donkey?  There is literally nothing short of changing the statue itself that would remove the desired aesthetic.  Putting a plaque underneath, or showing a video in another room, then showing Lee riding his horse victoriously... it's a waste of time - the statue itself does nothing for that conversation, but provide an example that racists will fight tooth and nail not to allow their icons to be destroyed, and still wield enough power to get their way.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2020, 12:45:09 PM by DonaldD »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #416 on: June 25, 2020, 12:43:34 PM »
...Racism in the USA continued in such a way as to continue to subjugate blacks as much as legally possible (and even more than that) for generations after the confederacy was defeated.

No, Fenring is on the right track, though. the point is not the need for reconciliation - the issue is political and economic power, and the conscious effort to garner it in spite of morality. The price has been paid to alleviate any "shame". Thousands of abolitionists died to give slaves their freedom. But once the GOP won that effort, the slavery-based Democrat Party fought to regain control of what they had lost. The slate was wiped clean, but the hand of greed and avaricious grubbing for power wrote a new scenario.

Reconciliation and reparations are buzz words used by the Left to tell the world that their betters did not do all that good a job of beating them. The worse the Left acts, the more they project their own desires onto the Right. Tucker Carlson and Mark Steyn were hilarious, but dead-on when they talked about how the current protestors are beyond doubt the stupidest and least-informed activists ever. They tear down statues of abolitionists and of Lincoln because they are ignorant - not because of some nuance about how the statues were posed. Carlson and Steyn suggested statues that the current stupid protestors could stand behind. Mark Steyn talked about a Jesse Smollett statue, with him posed with a meatball submarine in his hand during a Polar vortex being beaten by two guys he hired to act like Trump supporters at three in the morning. They'd probably leave flowers as a shrine.

How about a statue of Colin Kaepernick taking a knee? That would inspire them to tears. It could be surrounded by little statues of Democrats kneeling in homage. (Although Pelosi would need a helping hand statue to stand again... Would her helping hand statue be posed in one of those "subservient" positions that incite them to topple statues? Gotta be careful!)

This same ignorance lends the activists and disinformationists weapons for them to wield.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #417 on: June 25, 2020, 12:47:36 PM »
Thanks for the...uh...help.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #418 on: June 25, 2020, 12:52:03 PM »
Here's a better example.

It was previously linked by me that there are efforts to remove a particular statue of Lincoln in Boston because it makes Blacks uncomfortable due to how the black man is posed in the statue.

One minor detail seems to have been lost:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Memorial

Quote
According to the National Park Service, the monument was paid for solely by former slaves:
Quote
The campaign for the Freedmen's Memorial Monument to Abraham Lincoln, as it was to be known, was not the only effort of the time to build a monument to Lincoln; however, as the only one soliciting contributions exclusively from those who had most directly benefited from Lincoln's act of emancipation it had a special appeal ... The funds were collected solely from freed slaves (primarily from African American Union veterans) ...

So black activists want to tear down a memorial erected by their black ancestors?

Edit to add: Fredrick Douglas was the keynote speaker when it was dedicated as well.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2020, 12:54:59 PM by TheDeamon »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #419 on: June 25, 2020, 01:06:10 PM »
...So black activists want to tear down a memorial erected by their black ancestors?

That was the main "nuance" I posted about. The complaint was that Lincoln was freeing the slaves, but the slave in question was in a subservient position. Not an accurate depiction. The slave was rising, in what many have descrribed as a sprinter in the starting blocks at the start of a race - not kneeling.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #420 on: June 27, 2020, 05:53:03 PM »
Finally, a handy flowchart to help determine whether something is racist or not.

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1276983652988092419

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #421 on: June 27, 2020, 06:02:23 PM »
Finally, a handy flowchart to help determine whether something is racist or not.

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1276983652988092419

I thought this response to that one was more instructive, although it uses more words.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MoPolitiks/status/1276984343928471552

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #422 on: June 27, 2020, 07:54:17 PM »
Finally, a handy flowchart to help determine whether something is racist or not.

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1276983652988092419

Scott, I think you're better than this. I know you're trying to jest, but that link suggests you think most things people call racist aren't. I know you can discern better, no matter where you might like to draw the line. I request that you provide an example of something you don't think is racist but a lot of people think is.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #423 on: June 27, 2020, 11:32:27 PM »
Scott, I think you're better than this. I know you're trying to jest, but that link suggests you think most things people call racist aren't. I know you can discern better, no matter where you might like to draw the line. I request that you provide an example of something you don't think is racist but a lot of people think is.

You're going to be wading hip deep in the definition game on this one. Have fun!

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #424 on: June 28, 2020, 12:00:06 AM »
You're going to be wading hip deep in the definition game on this one. Have fun!

20 years ago, or even 12 year ago. I would have had no hesitation in trying to define racism. But since a certain person won election in 2008, the word seems to have picked up so many additional applications I wouldn't even bother to try. Especially after "White privilege" entered the scene. Near as I can tell, if you're white, it doesn't matter what you do, its somehow racist.

I think I'm going to agree with Tim Pool on this. We're in the middle of a non-theistic Religious Revival fervor, only the new religion is Anti-Racism, the original sin is White Privilege, forgiveness is to be sought be kneeling and babbling apologies to any available persons of color, and accepting with joy any verbal or physical abuse those minority groups see fit to bless them with.

Gen Z is more religious than previous generations, they just created an entirely different religion than what anyone expected.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #425 on: June 28, 2020, 01:42:58 AM »
You're going to be wading hip deep in the definition game on this one. Have fun!

20 years ago, or even 12 year ago. I would have had no hesitation in trying to define racism. But since a certain person won election in 2008, the word seems to have picked up so many additional applications I wouldn't even bother to try. Especially after "White privilege" entered the scene. Near as I can tell, if you're white, it doesn't matter what you do, its somehow racist.

I think I'm going to agree with Tim Pool on this. We're in the middle of a non-theistic Religious Revival fervor, only the new religion is Anti-Racism, the original sin is White Privilege, forgiveness is to be sought be kneeling and babbling apologies to any available persons of color, and accepting with joy any verbal or physical abuse those minority groups see fit to bless them with.

Gen Z is more religious than previous generations, they just created an entirely different religion than what anyone expected.

I'm in agreement with much of what you said TheDaemon. I do see and dislike the religious aspects of this.

Our disagreement lies in that I'm seeing this new religion much like I'd see Christianity rising from the ranks of the slaves of the Roman Empire. Though I hate the Christians for what they later did, e.g. to people like Hypatia, when they in turn became dominant, if at an earlier period of time I had to choose between them and Nero or Caligula, I'll still choose the Christians.

You are seeing the seeds of a future oppression against white people: I think you're possibly correct, much like Christianity contained within it the resentful seeds of oppression against non-Christians.

But in the meantime non-white people are still the ones being oppressed, still the ones who are underprivileged, and I'll rather side with the slaves of the Roman empire rather than the masters.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2020, 01:48:24 AM by Aris Katsaris »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #426 on: June 28, 2020, 05:44:37 AM »
You're going to be wading hip deep in the definition game on this one. Have fun!

20 years ago, or even 12 year ago. I would have had no hesitation in trying to define racism. But since a certain person won election in 2008, the word seems to have picked up so many additional applications I wouldn't even bother to try. Especially after "White privilege" entered the scene. Near as I can tell, if you're white, it doesn't matter what you do, its somehow racist.

I think I'm going to agree with Tim Pool on this. We're in the middle of a non-theistic Religious Revival fervor, only the new religion is Anti-Racism, the original sin is White Privilege, forgiveness is to be sought be kneeling and babbling apologies to any available persons of color, and accepting with joy any verbal or physical abuse those minority groups see fit to bless them with.

Gen Z is more religious than previous generations, they just created an entirely different religion than what anyone expected.

I'm in agreement with much of what you said TheDaemon. I do see and dislike the religious aspects of this.

Our disagreement lies in that I'm seeing this new religion much like I'd see Christianity rising from the ranks of the slaves of the Roman Empire. Though I hate the Christians for what they later did, e.g. to people like Hypatia, when they in turn became dominant, if at an earlier period of time I had to choose between them and Nero or Caligula, I'll still choose the Christians.

You are seeing the seeds of a future oppression against white people: I think you're possibly correct, much like Christianity contained within it the resentful seeds of oppression against non-Christians.

But in the meantime non-white people are still the ones being oppressed, still the ones who are underprivileged, and I'll rather side with the slaves of the Roman empire rather than the masters.

It may go against human nature to correct sins without becoming just another version of what you reject, but humanity does learn and adapt.  The result of freeing the slaves doesn't have to be enslaving ourselves to what the slaves suffered.  White privilege is real, but call it a caste system if that term is more acceptable to you.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #427 on: June 28, 2020, 11:38:35 AM »
White privilege is real, but call it a caste system if that term is more acceptable to you.

Yes, I'm in agreement with this. In the US today, poverty and class have greater overall oppressive effects than racism. That said, for many in the lower castes, the two are inextricably linked - historical racism having established the initial foundation and future patterns locking people into these castes in the first place.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #428 on: June 28, 2020, 02:59:14 PM »
As long as one uses the word "historical" to mean "from 1492 through, literally, today"

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #429 on: June 28, 2020, 03:23:08 PM »
Near as I can tell, if you're white, it doesn't matter what you do, its somehow racist.

For starters, that's horse*censored*. You bought a sandwich at subway? Racist!

Get out of the hyperbole, and actually make a case.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #430 on: July 02, 2020, 03:31:20 PM »
Oh in a recap of the past week:

5 people have been shot, 2 of whom have died to my knowledge(both black) in the Seattle CHAZ/CHOP area(which has now evidently been shut down)

The "finale event" for the CHOP consisted of the people working "security" for them shooting up a SUV being driven by a black teen(one of the two dead) and his younger brother.

Provo, Utah has arrested a BLM protester for shooting a motorist.

In Louisville, KY a radical (and black) BLM protester having having been asked to leave the protest, returns later that night and opens fire on the gathered protesters, killing a photojournalist and injuring a few others before other people in the protest returned fire and disabled him (good guys with a gun surface)

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #431 on: July 02, 2020, 03:57:57 PM »
Oh in a recap of the past week:

5 people have been shot, 2 of whom have died to my knowledge(both black) in the Seattle CHAZ/CHOP area(which has now evidently been shut down)

The "finale event" for the CHOP consisted of the people working "security" for them shooting up a SUV being driven by a black teen(one of the two dead) and his younger brother.

Provo, Utah has arrested a BLM protester for shooting a motorist.

In Louisville, KY a radical (and black) BLM protester having having been asked to leave the protest, returns later that night and opens fire on the gathered protesters, killing a photojournalist and injuring a few others before other people in the protest returned fire and disabled him (good guys with a gun surface)

These are not protesters, but criminals and/or gang bangers.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #432 on: July 02, 2020, 05:02:24 PM »
These are not protesters, but criminals and/or gang bangers.
No, they're Democrats armed by Pelosi and Schumer.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« Reply #433 on: July 05, 2020, 12:54:04 PM »
Going to link to the CNN version of this just to demonstrate skew at work:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/us/seattle-protesters-car-death/index.html

Quote
At about 1:30 a.m. Saturday, the suspect allegedly drove into a group of protesters on a section that the WSP had closed about midnight. Mead said a car drove around a series of "support vehicles" that protesters were using to block I-5 and protect themselves, and onto the shoulder of the freeway, where protesters were standing.

1) The driver of the vehicle is black.
2) "The series of support vehicles" that CNN alludes to was two vehicles parked perpendicular to the direction of vehicle travel across the freeway. So not even enough to fully block off the freeway... But enough to set up an oncoming motorist with a Trolley Problem because those vehicles would have blocked the driver's view of the protesters behind them.
3) The protesters were wearing black.
4) They also happened to be protesting on the exit end of a curve on the freeway.

Now the freeway was supposedly shut down by police for over an hour beforehand so there are questions as to how the guy managed to get on the interstate in the first place(other than he may entered by way of entering through an exit ramp), but his being black tends to say whatever happened, he wasn't racially motivated in his actions. I guess in an ironic twist, he may have been looking to join them... right up until he accidentally ran some of them over.

https://newsone.com/3970690/dawit-kelete-seattle-protest-hit-run-driver-identified/
« Last Edit: July 05, 2020, 12:58:34 PM by TheDeamon »