Ergill wrote:Thank you.
Not everyone to the right of you is a white nationalist or "fellow traveller." This sort of thing is why #walkaway is a thing.
I think a big part of the problem is that we're so uncomfortable talking about this stuff that we police these discussions, suppressing what is too painful to speak of, and suspecting bad intentions of anyone who crosses "the narrative." As a result, we candy-coat our discussions of race as it relates to poverty, institutional bias, and police procedure. When that happens, we only tell half the truth. We tell that half that disciplines the border of discussion to avoid sliding into unpleasantries and to avoid empowering the "other" narrative. But there are more than two narratives here. And when we only tell half the truth (Your mom and I met in college....), we leave the other half to be told by others, some of whom are indeed racists. What gives the racist power, however, is that for the unwitting, the racist presents "hidden truths" which "pill" people. Never leave even the smallest part of the truth to be exclusively told by your opposition, lest you make them appear to be martyrs, prophets, and "plain talkers."
I find the "candy-coating" itself to be unintentionally racist. That is, the notion that the full-truth is too damning to disclose (e.g, FBI homicide statistics that refute the narrative of whites hunting down blacks in the street), creates the notion of a dread secret that is too dangerous to disclose, creating a paternalistic impulse to protect people from "the truth."
Part of this comes from a sense that if you're not part of the tribe, it is not your place to criticize. You can complain about your mom, but if anyone else talks bad about your mom, that's a different story. And so it is OK for fat people to tell fat jokes, and so on. And someone who isn't black talking about black problems just doesn't sound right (although it is always OK to criticize whiteness, maleness, Christianity, and heterosexuality), so everyone is expected to take a hard pass on talking about anything that isn't the official honorific/valorific narrative. At the level of public policy, however, we all have to discuss what to do together. More important, we are first and foremost human beings, which necessitates that we don't shy away from painful discussions as if African Americans were really a different "race."
Ergill wrote:Yes, and in the Dreyfus Affair, many Dreyfusards, even progressive people who supported the Jews, still partook liberally of the antisemitism of their day. Bernard Lazare, himself a Jew and an anarchist, wrote a historical critique of antisemitism, but none of that stopped him from dipping deep into its tropes and providing fodder for its adherents. People and prejudice are more complicated than a laundry list of their respectable positions. I don’t think you’re a racist ideologue. I also don’t think you recognize how the way you’re talking about black people plays on racist impulses. I think if we dropped someone from Stormfront in here, they'd be eager to pat your back.
Well, I also have some character judgements about "Skyler" from Breaking Bad
(portrayed by a great actress who gave a great performance) and there are bizarro misogynists (the Skyler haters) who might want to high five me, but I don't shy away from stating that I feel that she begins being written a little too unfavourably (henpecking Walt, establishing part of his motivation to be something more) and then becomes an accomplice (revealing that she is part-gangster herself) after she had a chance to get out of the relationship (literally hopping in a car and driving away and getting legal advice to hit the ejection seat). That pyschopaths contingently agree with some of my judgements doesn't implicate me in their psychosis.
There are more positions on the matter than "Skyler is great!" and "Skyler is a bitch because she doesn't support Walt!"
Ergill wrote:I said I was “fine” with restrictions on third-term abortion. Interpret that however you will (i.e. batshit crazy).
So, may I take it that you support legal restrictions of third-term abortions? I don't think that this is a "batshit crazy" question. I think it is a direct question. I only ask for a direct answer....
Ergill wrote:Huh? What do they have to do with high birth rates?
Well, you did say, "Impoverished people have had larger reproductive rates far as long as impoverishment has been a thing," yes? This implies that you take it to be a general proposition ("climate") that this is the case. That the "weather" in these cases was different does not repudiate my point, which is that you don't want to piss off the poor too much, because they can successfully revolt. What I really take issue with is your generally fatalistic message that the poor cannot defeat the rich, not even with advantage in numbers.
Ergill wrote:Duly noted.
Your notation has been noted as well.
Ergill wrote:Oh, I thought you just said you have no reservations with the vast majority of these abortions. Sorry, I mean the largest portion of this genocide.
The later we are in pregnancy, the closer we are to confidently satisfying criteria of personhood, the more concerned we should be (the closer we are to a winning "powerball" ticket and thus an opportunity cost).
If you deny genocide, then we must visit criteria of personhood. Again, this is the central stasis of the debate. We cannot leave it unaddressed.
Ergill wrote:BLM isn’t any more responsible for the riots or a rightwing assassin than the labor movement was responsible for the (much worse) riots of its day.
No, they're responsible, IMO. They picked the wrong anecdote, attached it to the wrong narrative, and spent their chips in Ferguson and Dallas. They did more harm than good.
Ergill wrote: Of course, that never stops anyone from trying to tar whole movements as such. It is, indeed, a special American pastime to dismiss black riots as simply the product of radical delusions. But as MLK said, even if we stand against riots, we should recognize that “a riot is the language of the unheard”.
MLK was wise. And sometimes riots are acceptable and even justified. It is unfortunate, however, when a riot centers on an event prematurely judged and a narrative disconnected from root causes.
Ergill wrote:I don’t believe that cops are primarily incompetent.
Well, we disagree there. American cops are, sadly, comical compared to police forces in other developed nations.
Ergill wrote:And I don’t believe that blacks are merely the unfortunate inheritors of poverty, and what's more, a poverty born of racism that’s withered to accidental stereotypes born of their poverty. I think that conscious racism, unconscious racism and institutional racism are still a substantive portion of the pie and need to be addressed.
Ergill wrote:It’s more than keeping people’s wealth down. It’s about centuries of social subjugation as well. You’ve touched part of the behemoth and settled on an elephant.
Right, but were talking about centuries of economic subjugation and social opportunities that were denied so as to deny economic opportunities.
Ergill wrote:“Representin”. Uh…huh. It’s a wonder the drug war was a throwaway reference for you, but that “gangsta culture” has been the greater bête noire, as it were.
I stand by the comment. Do your worst.
Ergill wrote:And yet this doesn’t dominate your statistic-mongering. Black threat does. Over and over and over and over and over and over.
This is a common fallacy of inference. "Someone disagrees with me, and they will not desist from disagreeing with me, so they MUST hold the contrary opinion."
The truth is, sadly, that black and white don't really even care about each other enough to even kill each other in our country. Perversely, Dr. King's "Dream" will not be realized until intra-racial homicide rates are equal. In a perfect world, we would refrain from murdering each other at all, but we live in an oddly segregated world where we murder within race (suggesting that the most common hate crime of all is to murder someone for
sharing the same color skin you have).
Ergill wrote:”Who would guess through all your repetition of murderous black threat that well under %1 of blacks will commit a homicide in a given year? And from that less-than-%1 you see a regrettable but understandable stereotype.”
The criminal justice system doesn't see us on our best day. Cops don't generally interact with us on our best day. They only see us at our worst. And rare as crime is, overall, this creates sampling bias in the system (e.g., when you see X many more people in group Y every month, the stereotypical inference is "hydraulically pressed"
Ergill wrote:Pretty cool. And well under %1 of blacks will commit a homicide in a given year. Perhaps (1) this should not be dominating the discussion and perhaps (2) we should be more wary of the dangers of stereotype threat.
Well, I guess if you think Stromfront is up this parlor, sure... ...I guess. Near as I can tell, however, I am the only one here who isn't turbo lefty and this is dive bar in a dark corner of the internet.
Ergill wrote:Seeing as how revolutions are both good and bad, I don't know that this says much of anything, but let's keep moving lest Chester catch up with us and "stroke his chin whitely."
As you wish, Lefty McLefterton, waggle your finger righteously (presumably while "literally shaking").
Ergill wrote:Constantly associating blacks with riots and murder isn’t a good look.
And a worse look is the fact that black males kill black males at an alarming rate, but we don't do shit about it because it is in the ghetto. We have actually abandoned people there.
If you're a racist, I suppose you'd get pumped over this as proof of racial inferiority. If you're a classicist, I suppose that this is proof of bad breeding. Somehow, I see this black people getting screwed by poverty, cultural defomation, and general abandonment by even well-meaning people.
Ergill wrote:Probably because there’s absolutely no reason why this required you hammering away at black threat for huge, repetitious chunks of your posts, dismissing context as weasely or inconsequential. The bizarre glee you get from this and your callous obliviousness to how this would read to a black person make it all the more grotesque.
Black people note this too. It's just "impolite" for white people to observe this. We can't fix
what is wrong with America until we acknowledge
what's wrong with America. I simply want you to look at (what I think is) the problem. And what is NOT the problem is the notion of modern Jim Crow, shooting us in the streets, or gangs of Chesters in MAGA hats driving Dodge Dakotas with "Gillespie for Governor" number-stickers looking for children of color to run down.
Ergill wrote:I don’t think it’s really clear to you what my case
I am just talking about your case for your curious mathematics.
Ergill wrote:It’s not safety in numbers. It’s simply safety.
That's a big part of it, yes. But the other part (if we're actually debating "White man is killing us!") is safety from whom?
And this is where BLM deserves criticism.
Ergill wrote:What should they care about?
Ergill wrote:It should also be pointed out that you’re laboring under the impression that I think whites are killing blacks in the streets in droves. You claim this because you’re a shoddy reader and shoddier arguer with a crutch for arguing at caricatures.
How many shoddies is that?
Ergill wrote:Like lynchings in 1939, these deaths might not be common, but people latch on to them as symbols of larger social ills that affect multitudes in a multitude of ways short of a conspicuous death.
It ain't 1939. The analogy to 80-years-ago is a bit desperate. There is a qualitative difference between lynching and our modern examples (e.g., acts of community terrorism against another community).
Ergill wrote:This creates a counter-impulse among other people who want to latch on to these symbols as an all-or-nothing counterargument to everything they think the protesters stand for. But if all you can talk about is “hands up” then you’re not any better than the caricature protesters you’re arguing against. Brown could be the biggest of myths. The reaction to his death did not spring from a myth. As the DOJ report on the Ferguson police department attests, and as their horrendous reaction to the protests supports, the black community had deep and legitimate resentments with the powers that be. You cite Spike approvingly. People didn’t riot just because Radio Raheem died or because Mookie threw a trash can through a window. They rioted because of long-simmering tensions born of shitty policy and policing.
I don't always agree with Spike, although I do like that he always makes you think. I love School Daze, but Do the Right Thing was heavy handed, IMO. Even so, I'll take ten Spike Lee joints over any random caricature of African Americans reduced to "Modern Pirates."