Author Topic: Anyone notice BLM is only around during election seasons? (Read 6698 times)

Master Matthew� · July 06, 2020, 11:41:41 PM

Quote from: Aide33 on July 06, 2020, 11:23:05 PM

this is what I'm talking about, idgaf that slavery doesn't exist anymore in the USA. extrapolate the bigger point dumbass.

Reparations are still dumb, none of the people bitching about slavery lived to see it, and they're asking for money from people who never lived to gain from it.

Quote from: Aide33 on July 06, 2020, 11:23:05 PM

you and cheeze literally keep saying racism doesn't exist anymore except against white people

No, I have not. And honestly, racism will never go away. Going on a childish crusade to stop people from thinking tribal is asinine. And These stronger pushes
for racially centered laws intentionally hurt white and asian people simply because they're white and Asian and some IQ statistic puts them at an advantage. This is dumb and tribal.

Quote from: Aide33 on July 06, 2020, 11:23:05 PM

deflection to my point. I'm not advocating to treat people differently. you guys literally think the act of acknowledging that some people treat other people differently based on race is racism and the fact that you completely missed the point i was making is proving my point.

The acknowledgment I can only assume you mean, is the acknowledgement of statistics that divide people by race and determine that one IQ average of a race entitles an entire race to specific accommodations, which is tribal. California Proposition 16 Repeal Proposition 209 "Affirmative Action Amendment" solidifies that systems like Affirmative Action are inherently tribal and discriminatory.

Quote from: Aide33 on July 06, 2020, 11:23:05 PM

again, you're projecting because you deflect every single one of my points

Ah yes the classic "no u" 10/10.

Ad Bot · Advertisement

Aide33 · July 06, 2020, 11:52:35 PM

Quote from: Master Matthew� on July 06, 2020, 11:41:41 PM

Reparations are still dumb, none of the people bitching about slavery lived to see it, and they're asking for money from people who never lived to gain from it.No, I have not. And honestly, racism will never go away. Going on a childish crusade to stop people from thinking tribal is asinine. And These stronger pushes
for racially centered laws intentionally hurt white and asian people simply because they're white and Asian and some IQ statistic puts them at an advantage. This is dumb and tribal.
The acknowledgment I can only assume you mean, is the acknowledgement of statistics that divide people by race and determine that one IQ average of a race entitles an entire race to specific accommodations, which is tribal. California Proposition 16 Repeal Proposition 209 "Affirmative Action Amendment" solidifies that systems like Affirmative Action are inherently tribal and discriminatory.
Ah yes the classic "no u" 10/10.

you've completely missed my point again (by denying actual structural inequalities and deflected) and further proved my point by bringing up a bill i don't support or defend lol

also nice, you think I'm a race realist or what?? why the forget are you talking about race and IQ when I've argued against it vehemently on this forum. I'm talking about racial inequalities in the justice system and in general people treating other people differently because of race. not some weird tribal "hurr durr bell curve" stuff, I'm talking about cops being tribal or store owners being tribal or ceos being tribal or societies attitudes towards skin color in general.

Conan · July 06, 2020, 11:54:02 PM

since matthew acknowledges racism will never fully go away, does that mean hes tribal?????

TomsHere · July 07, 2020, 01:10:42 AM

Can we maybe stop with the strawman bullstuff please? No one has seriously suggested that racism doesn�t exist.

Also here�s a take:

"Racism is bad" is absolutely true if by "racism" you mean something ideological, like the belief that race X is superior to and ought to rule over race Y.

But if "racism" means saying you think all lives matter, and that black lives don't matter even the tiniest bit more than white lives on account of being black, (because there is no such thing as a one-sided equality) then whether this definition of "racism" is bad or not is more of an open question.

If "racism" means "benefitting from a system in which whites tend to get more desirable results on average" then that is nowhere near enough information to say whether it's bad or not.

The meaning of the term has been distorted beyond all recognition. You have to add a qualifier, like "what everyone understood racism to mean in the 1960s" (which is definitely bad) before it becomes specific enough to be meaningful.

Aide33 · July 07, 2020, 02:38:56 AM

the problem with addressing race issues on this forum is that most people are incredibly uninformed and give middle-of-the-road generally agreeable takes without learning about the nuance of it. I don't think all of you are acting in bad faith, but it comes off as dismissive and dodges questions.

Part of TomsHere's post is a nice example of what i mean:

Quote from: TomsHere on July 07, 2020, 01:10:42 AM

But if "racism" means saying you think all lives matter, and that black lives don't matter even the tiniest bit more than white lives on account of being black, (because there is no such thing as a one-sided equality) then whether this definition of "racism" is bad or not is more of an open question.

(Correct me if I'm wrong on the interpretation) This statement, in and of itself, isn't anything to argue with. It's a very good, egalitarian perspective on race, everyone should matter equally. But it doesn't get the whole historical nuance of the conversation and it comes across very tone-deaf to someone who's familiar with issues related to BLM.

Here's a good reddit comment to sum it up:

Quote from: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3du1qm/eli5_why_is_it_so_controversial_when_someone_says/

Imagine that you're sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don't get any. So you say "I should get my fair share." And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, "everyone should get their fair share." Now, that's a wonderful sentiment -- indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad's smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn't solve the problem that you still haven't gotten any!

The problem is that the statement "I should get my fair share" had an implicit "too" at the end: "I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else." But your dad's response treated your statement as though you meant "only I should get my fair share", which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that "everyone should get their fair share," while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.

That's the situation of the "black lives matter" movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.

[...]

Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase "black lives matter" also has an implicit "too" at the end: it's saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying "all lives matter" is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It's a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means "only black lives matter," when that is obviously not the case. And so saying "all lives matter" as a direct response to "black lives matter" is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.

TL;DR: The phrase "Black lives matter" carries an implicit "too" at the end; it's saying that black lives should also matter. Saying "all lives matter" is dismissing the very problems that the phrase is trying to draw attention to.

The black lives matter movement is to bring light and correct racial injustice faced by the black community in the United States. These injustices have been ongoing for centuries and are a direct product of decades of Jim Crowe, Redlining, gerrymandering, police brutality, and just plain old racial discrimination by the state and society. To sum it up to "they are saying blacks only matter therefore i should respond with all lives matter" is incredibly simplistic, naive and ignorant.

It's hard to have a conversation when people are ignorant and dismissive without even noticing that they are.

Quote from: TomsHere on July 07, 2020, 01:10:42 AM

If "racism" means "benefitting from a system in which whites tend to get more desirable results on average" then that is nowhere near enough information to say whether it's bad or not.

Can you elaborate as to why "a system in which whites tend to get more desirable results on average" is not clearly bad for you?

Goth77 · July 07, 2020, 06:24:42 AM

so NASCAR got rid of the confederate flag - is okay to burn my gay pride flag now too i thought i was cool with both

SubDaWoofer · July 07, 2020, 06:29:29 AM

Quote from: Goth77 on July 07, 2020, 06:24:42 AM

so NASCAR got rid of the confederate flag - is okay to burn my gay pride flag now too i thought i was cool with both

ye

cHeEsEpIzZa2 · July 07, 2020, 07:46:22 AM

nix when you get into implicit meanings and overarching goals while ignoring actual real world functionality you can justify anything. if 1940 germany said "our overarching goal is to end racism" and similar that doesn't make it ok to gas jews

TomsHere · July 07, 2020, 08:57:12 AM

Quote from: Aide33 on July 07, 2020, 02:38:56 AM

.
To sum it up to "they are saying blacks only matter therefore i should respond with all lives matter" is incredibly simplistic, naive and ignorant.

That�s not what I think they�re saying. What they are saying is that lives of people who are black do, indeed, matter. And with that is the implication that anyone who disagrees with the execution of their movement thinks that black lives don�t matter. It�s an unfair term, like �pro-life� and �pro-choice� are. It�s putting a negative light on everyone who isn�t them.

>It's hard to have a conversation when people are ignorant and dismissive without even noticing that they are.

Christ, every supporter of the movement that I know has said something like this, assuming that anyone who disagrees with the conclusions they draw knows absolutely nothing. Why do we have to treat each other like children? Talking about �historical nuances� and stuff, let�s come back down to earth please instead of taking the holier than thou attitude. This is 2020, not the 1800�s and not the 60�s. It seems like blm is for combatting modern racism as we see it, not combating segregated drinking fountains or slavery.

>Can you elaborate as to why "a system in which whites tend to get more desirable results on average" is not clearly bad for you?

No, because that wasn�t the point of that statement in context.

Drydess · July 07, 2020, 11:07:18 AM

Quote from: TomsHere on July 07, 2020, 08:57:12 AM

>It's hard to have a conversation when people are ignorant and dismissive without even noticing that they are.

Christ, every supporter of the movement that I know has said something like this, assuming that anyone who disagrees with the conclusions they draw knows absolutely nothing. Why do we have to treat each other like children? Talking about �historical nuances� and stuff, let�s come back down to earth please instead of taking the holier than thou attitude. This is 2020, not the 1800�s and not the 60�s. It seems like blm is for combatting modern racism as we see it, not combating segregated drinking fountains or slavery.

that you think this is why you're missing the point. the year is 2020, it has been 80 years since explicit racism has ended in law, and we still see its presence in our population

^^this is a MASSIVE gap by the way

all while . . .

of forgeten course BLM isn't combating segregated drinking fountains or slavery because we don't face these problems in america. instead we enjoy very significant discrepancies in wealth, pay, crime, discrimination, and poverty as a result of solutions to these problems having been ignored for nearly a century sheerly out of pride and defensiveness. this is systemic racism, and this is what is being protested.
---
re: all lives matter--aide's point is that it's deflection and an attempt to find a moral highground by those saying the same message as BLM, and misconstruing BLM to be supremacy. "all lives matter" is a movement actively opposing BLM, serving absolutely no point but for those a part of it who use it as a vehicle for further discrimination or to keep measures of systemic and institutionalized oppression of nonwhites in place

cHeEsEpIzZa2 · July 07, 2020, 11:45:37 AM

ah yes because giving free stuff to poor people as long as they stay poor and throwing concrete milkshakes at white people is going to fix perceived racial inequality

maybe you should look at why black people are arrested and acted on by police more, because once you realize the black population kills twice as many people as white people do it starts making much more sense on why there's more black arrests.

"wouldn't that just be racial inequality anyways, just hidden under layers of statistics" you ask? well, the reason black ppl commit more crimes is because the system enforces them to. that is indeed systematic slavery, but it is in no way the fault of all white people or republican national socialists or what have you, it's the product of the current broken welfare systems that the left perpetuates. simply put, if you get lots of children, you get a huge payout. if you're a single mother (but NOT a single father for some reason), you get a huge payout. if you get a job that pays you enough to be taken out of poverty, your welfare gets cut off. this all combines to basically forces poor people (which the majority of black ppl are, according to drydess) to have lots of children, never form a family unit, and commit crimes instead of getting a paying, legal job.

Drydess · July 07, 2020, 12:17:03 PM

i wasnt talking to you but ill take the bait. even hayek believed in social safety nets and affirmative action. hayek, father of reaganomics and thatcherism--hayek, intensely critical on communist and socialist societies

Quote

�From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently...Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different, but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either the one or the other, but not both at the same time.�

he also wrote this:

Quote

�There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained [NW note: Hayek was writing not in prosperous post-war America, but in war-torn, austerity-ridden Britain in 1943] the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. .... [T]here can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. ... Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision.
"Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance � where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks � the case for the state�s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to super-cede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatability in principle between the state�s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.
"To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state�s rendering assistance to the victims of such �acts of God� as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.
�There is, finally, the supremely important problem of combating general fluctuations of economic activity and the recurrent waves of large-scale unemployment which accompany them. This is, of course, one of the gravest and most pressing problems of our time. But, though its solution will require much planning in the good sense, it does not � or at least need not � require that special kind of planning which according to its advocates is to replace the market.

"Many economists hope, indeed, that the ultimate remedy may be found in the field of monetary policy, which would involve nothing incompatible even with nineteenth-century liberalism. Others, it is true, believe that real success can be expected only from the skillful timing of public works undertaken on a very large scale. This might lead to much more serious restrictions of the competitive sphere, and, in experimenting in this direction, we shall have to carefully watch our step if we are to avoid making all economic activity progressively more dependent on the direction and volume of government expenditure. But this is neither the only nor, in my opinion, the most promising way of meeting the gravest threat to economic security.

"In any case, the very necessary effort to secure protection against these fluctuations do not lead to the kind of planning which constitutes such a threat to our freedom.�

paine wrote this:

Quote

�Whenever we depart from the principle of equal rights, or attempt any modification of it, we plunge into a labyrinth of difficulties from which there is no way out but by retreating. Where are we to stop? Or by what principle are we to find out the point to stop at, that shall discriminate between men of the same country, part of whom shall be free, and the rest not?�

i seriously don't know how you expect systemic racism to be solved via equal treatment. x=x+1 has no solution.

> maybe you should look at why black people are arrested and acted on by police more, because once you realize the black population kills twice as many people as white people do it starts making much more sense on why there's more black arrests.
I have 3 sources in my post referencing income and poverty discrepancies. don't know what you're trying to do with this but to paint me as an idiot. poor people commit more crime, that's a fact and it is what I was getting at by referencing both poverty and crime. you're blaming increased accommodations for the poverty cycle which is just a broken idea without any grounds except for "This Is How I Think People Work" and incomplete studies on human behavior, as opposed to affirmative action backed by every father of economics and consistent studies on its use with positive results. these Great Leftist Policies you constantly complain about don't work in solving the poverty cycle because it's upheld by wages that haven't been fair since the sixties, egregious punishments for possession of drugs without adequate rehabilitation efforts, a refusal (from both sides of the aisle) to cater more lower class jobs, and the inability to receive an education that is required for skilled and well-paying work.

TomsHere · July 07, 2020, 01:08:10 PM

So according to these statistics which don�t take any factors into account other than race and income (so much for historical nuances), there is a wage gap between averages of people with white skin and averages of people with black skin.
What should we do about that? There are a ton more whites in the country than non-whites according to Drydess�s data, which means the average poverty rate for the larger sample (whites) will more likely be less by default.
Should we boil it down to �systemic racism�?
Maybe we should start killing whites so that the gap starts closing.

That was a joke
In all seriousness though, I�m not great with economics but maybe as a temporary measure we could raise wages for people getting out of welfare. Like, give companies that hire them a bit more money to incentivize hiring them (not based on race, but on economic status) and part of that money has to go to the ex-welfare employee�s wages. That gives the company incentive and the worker incentive, seems like a win-win to me idk
Or you could make a privately funded union for blacks getting out of welfare that gives them extra wages for a while. The only stipulation is that you don�t go back to welfare.
That sounds really crude but we�re talking about how to end systemic racism or what is perceived as such. Giving people handouts isn�t being equal, it�s telling poor people (many of whom happen to be black) that they can�t succeed because �the system won�t let you� and rewarding them for being in poverty. Time and time again there have been hardworking black Americans that have gotten out of poverty and done great things, even despite actual segregation and laws that were corrupt. Maybe if we stopped telling people with black skin that they can�t get ahead, rewarding failure, and creating reliance on government we might see wage gaps start to close.

This is all my opinion so I�m not saying that it�s completely flawless.
I�m willing to accept the fact that a wage gap based on race exists, but I�m not willing to go along with the idea that �If you don�t go about fixing that problem in the way that I think it should be done then you�re exploiting blacks for your benefit - you�re part of the oppressive proletariat system Hurrrr�

cHeEsEpIzZa2 · July 07, 2020, 01:18:34 PM

yah that sounds pretty epic - cut welfare and give the leftover cash to companies that accurately reflect national class averages; that way companies have an incentive to hire poor people while also having an incentive to drop people as soon as they get to middle class

also drydess idk what you're on about there, apart from the "hey we should share the wealth #communism" quote, you basically said nothing except "hey the left doesn't do that because i think we should do THIS smh my smh" which makes 0 sense

also "affirmative action" woah cool it with the antisemitism

Drydess · July 07, 2020, 01:25:57 PM

systemic racism isn't always intentional by lawmakers or their constituents. it's a consequence of political beliefs propagated by those who seek to maintain a strong and defined lower class, some of whom hold tribal contentions. I actually agree with your idea tom in the form of a partial basic income such that poverty isn't a generational problem but rather an individual one, it's been something I've advocated for for a while

Quote from: cHeEsEpIzZa2 on July 07, 2020, 01:18:34 PM

yah that sounds pretty epic - cut welfare and give the leftover cash to companies that accurately reflect national class averages; that way companies have an incentive to hire poor people while also having an incentive to drop people as soon as they get to middle class

also drydess idk what you're on about there, apart from the "hey we should share the wealth #communism" quote, you basically said nothing except "hey the left doesn't do that because i think we should do THIS smh my smh" which makes 0 sense

a) hayek's road to serfdom established peoples hate for communism from the 60s onward. b) affirmative action isn't communism, it's economic science. c) you use more buzzwords than kamala harris, don't kid yourself into thinking you're a genius just because people don't like you