About those peaceful antifa protests...

[Razgovory]

Trevor Noah calling out Antifa

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/09/01/trevor_noah_on_antifa_violence_video.html

Because most left wing people do not like violent extremists. I don't get the smilie.

Even savage black people are turned off by the terrible brutality of standing up to Nazis.

[Camerus]

Inasmuch as there is a general political tenor to this place, I'd describe its leanings as similar to those of the Economist - so in US political terms, socially somewhat liberal and economically more conservative with the attendant faith in science and evidence-based policy (at least relative to most other corners of the internet). Of course there are notable individual outliers.

[Eddie Teach]

...huh?
Languish is very right leaning. The very core of this place is people who left paradox as it was too left wing.

Err, no. It's people who left paradox because we wanted to discuss forbidden topics.

And the exodus happened just before Paradox got an influx of new hoi players who probably were more conservative on average than the eu vets.

[CountDeMoney]

All of you can board a Malaysian Airlines flight as far as I'm fucking concerned.

[garbon]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/opinion/civil-rights-protest-resistance.html

Waiting for a Perfect Protest?

Media outlets and commentators representing a range of political persuasions have called attention to recent outbreaks of violence in Berkeley, Calif., Boston and other locations where anti-racist and anti-fascist demonstrators have gathered. Intentionally or not, they have often promoted a false equivalency between groups that advocate white supremacy and those that seek to eliminate it.

Even mainstream media outlets that typically fact-check the president seem to have subtly bought into Mr. Trump's "both sides" narrative regarding right- and left-wing extremism. They've run headlines that highlight small violent skirmishes while ignoring the thousands who marched and protested peacefully, to say nothing of the injustices that inspired the protests.

Our complaint here is not about the right-wing media outlets that we know will continue to delegitimize anti-racist protest in any form — whether it's peacefully sitting during the national anthem, marching in the streets, staging boycotts or simply making the apparently radical claim that "black lives matter." Rather, our concern at this moment is with our moderate brothers and sisters who voice support for the cause of racial justice but simultaneously cling to paralyzingly unrealistic standards when it comes to what protest should look like.

As Christian clergy members, we place a high value on nonviolence. We are part of a national campaign that promotes proven solutions to reducing gun violence in our cities, and each of us has worked to achieve peace in our neighborhoods. But we know there has never been a time in American history in which movements for justice have been devoid of violent outbreaks.

Thanks to the sanitized images of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement that dominate our nation's classrooms and our national discourse, many Americans imagine that protests organized by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and countless local organizations fighting for justice did not fall victim to violent outbreaks. That's a myth. In spite of extensive training in nonviolent protest and civil disobedience, individuals and factions within the larger movement engaged in violent skirmishes, and many insisted on their right to physically defend themselves even while they proclaimed nonviolence as an ideal (examples include leaders of the SNCC and the Deacons for Defense and Justice in Mississippi).

The reality — which is underdiscussed but essential to an understanding of our current situation — is that the civil rights work of Dr. King and other leaders was loudly opposed by overt racists and quietly sabotaged by cautious moderates. We believe that current moderates sincerely want to condemn racism and to see an end to its effects. The problem is that this desire is outweighed by the comfort of their current circumstances and a perception of themselves as above some of the messy implications of fighting for liberation. This is nothing new. In fact, Dr. King's 1963 "Letter From Birmingham Jail" is as relevant today as it was then. He wrote in part:

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action."

National polling from the 1960s shows that even during that celebrated "golden age" of nonviolent protest, most Americans were against marches and demonstrations. A 1961 Gallup poll revealed that 57 percent of the public thought that lunch counter sit-ins and other demonstrations would hurt integration efforts. A 1963 poll showed that 60 percent had an unfavorable feeling toward the planned March on Washington, where Dr. King gave his "I Have a Dream" speech. A year later, 74 percent said that since black people had made some progress, they should stop their demonstrations; and by 1969, 74 percent said that marching, picketing and demonstrations were hurting the civil rights cause. As for Dr. King personally, the figure who current moderates most readily point to as a model, 50 percent of people polled in 1966 thought that he was hurting the civil rights movement; only 36 percent believed he was helping.

The civil rights movement was messy, disorderly, confrontational and yes, sometimes violent. Those standing on the sidelines of the current racial-justice movement, waiting for a pristine or flawless exercise of righteous protest, will have a long wait. They, we suspect, will be this generation's version of the millions who claim that they were one of the thousands who marched with Dr. King. Each of us should realize that what we do now is most likely what we would have done during those celebrated protests 50 years ago. Rather than critique from afar, come out of your homes, follow those who are closest to the pain, and help us to redeem this country, and yourselves, in the process.

Michael McBride is a pastor and the director of PICO National Network's "Live Free" campaign. Traci Blackmon is the United Church of Christ's executive minister of justice and witness.
Frank Reid is the African Methodist Episcopal Church's bishop of ecumenical affairs and social action. Barbara Williams Skinner is a co-convener of the National African American Clergy Network.

[The Brain]

Deus vult!

[Delirium]

Attempting to avoid, if possible, the personal stuff (probably doomed), I will simply say this:

I don't think there is anything quite outrageous to presume a white person, in a white society, has not especially been confronted to racism. It's a pretty well researched phenomenon, actually: members of groups who are placed in a position of privilege have the luxury not to imagine the life of those in an inferior position, because such ignorance carry no great consequences. Whereas the price of ignorance of how the powerful think, from the less-powerful, can be quite high.

It's a presumption, sure. Which doesn't mean a white person never has been confronted with prejudice (obviously). I am sure people, including on the forum, have had to contend with all other sorts of prejudice, and surely that informs the understanding of being placed in a position of judgment and inferiority. But I tend to assume there is something about racial prejudice that does not lend itself well to comparisons to other forms of prejudice, as all those stories of black people arrested for driving luxury vehicles they couldn't possibly own, in the minds of the cops. In any other circumstances, in the United States, wealth should have insured these people from discriminatory treatment, and yet, have not.

It doesn't mean either that white people are incapable of thinking seriously about issues such as racism, or articulating a profound understanding of it. But is garbon's habitual snarky answer  *that* different from the snarky answers given to, say, Marty, or BB, posting stuff about the United States, and being dismissed as foreigners - regardless of how informed they may be? Apart from the fact that it's clearly more offensive to be dismissed as a racist than as a "foreigner"?

The difference is that the snarkys answers are just that - trolls, and nobody takes it seriously when Seedy calls BB a Canadian - it isn't part of the actual discussion.

Garbon told us that we should ignore Del's position because he is a white person, and that was not a joke, or a troll, or a snarky response. It was a completely serious response to a serious discussion.

This isn't about challenging someone's perspectives and demanding that they step outside their bubble. This is about the attempt to stifle discussion by invalidating someone's position based solely on their race, rather than the content of their ideas.

I don't think garbon gets a pass, or should not get a pass, because he is "snarky". Or because other people are also snarky, and maybe dismissive in some other fashion.

Now, if you want to argue that garbon should be given as much relevance as lettow because they are equally willing to make racist, snarky comments, then we are probably in agreement.

But the argument, that appears to be being made by you and Jake, that garbon making racist comments towards people he disagrees with is a-ok because other people on languish are trollish, then I suspect that your position is motivated more by his alignment in opinion than any rational or even reasonably fair assessment of his behavior in this case.

It isn't THAT big of a deal, but it isn't nothing. I think the level of angst shown by garbon in bringing it up in a completely unrelated context, and Jakes hysterical reaction and your own careful attempt to divert the basic issue suggests rather strongly to me that you all know perfectly well that I am right.

But if this is just no big deal, then let it go. So garbon is all edgy racist, I am sure me and Del are just being overly sensitive - I am, after all, well known for being some kind of radical conservative ready to be offended by supposed "reverse racism", right?

Well, Berkut (and grumbler) are obviously correct here. I find it somewhat soothing that more people, now, have expressed doubt about the issue but the failure from most people to do so was and is disappointing and I suppose an indication of how accepted the silly left and its ridiculous ideas on identy have become for people who do not think their positions through.

I do not count garbon who is quite demonstrably only in it for cheap laughs, obviously. Not better than Jaron in that regard, only that Jaron was funny. For some inexplicable reason g is taken seriously?

[dps]

Jaron wasn't funny.

[garbon]

I do not count garbon who is quite demonstrably only in it for cheap laughs, obviously. Not better than Jaron in that regard, only that Jaron was funny. For some inexplicable reason g is taken seriously?

Probably best if you don't try to ascertain people's motives. You are pretty terrible at it if that post is any indication.

[Berkut]

I do not count garbon who is quite demonstrably only in it for cheap laughs, obviously. Not better than Jaron in that regard, only that Jaron was funny. For some inexplicable reason g is taken seriously?

Probably best if you don't try to ascertain people's motives. You are pretty terrible at it if that post is any indication.

Oh, now that is rich, coming from Mr. "white whine".

[garbon]

I do not count garbon who is quite demonstrably only in it for cheap laughs, obviously. Not better than Jaron in that regard, only that Jaron was funny. For some inexplicable reason g is taken seriously?

Probably best if you don't try to ascertain people's motives. You are pretty terrible at it if that post is any indication.

Oh, now that is rich, coming from Mr. "white whine".

Del's motivation was pretty transparent as he stated it beforehand. He doesn't 'give a fuck about race'.  I'd love to be able to not give a fuck too.

[Berkut]

I do not count garbon who is quite demonstrably only in it for cheap laughs, obviously. Not better than Jaron in that regard, only that Jaron was funny. For some inexplicable reason g is taken seriously?

Probably best if you don't try to ascertain people's motives. You are pretty terrible at it if that post is any indication.

Oh, now that is rich, coming from Mr. "white whine".

Del's motivation was pretty transparent as he stated it beforehand. He doesn't 'give a fuck about race'.  I'd love to be able to not give a fuck too.

You have made it very clear how much you care about other peoples race.

His motives are not the question - the issue is where the genesis of those motives come from - you have stated they come from his race. He is whining because he is white.

Again, there is a word for that - where you ascribe motives, thoughts, attributes, and characteristics to people based on their race.

[mongers]

I do not count garbon who is quite demonstrably only in it for cheap laughs, obviously. Not better than Jaron in that regard, only that Jaron was funny. For some inexplicable reason g is taken seriously?

Probably best if you don't try to ascertain people's motives. You are pretty terrible at it if that post is any indication.

Oh, now that is rich, coming from Mr. "white whine".

Del's motivation was pretty transparent as he stated it beforehand. He doesn't 'give a fuck about race'.  I'd love to be able to not give a fuck too.

You have made it very clear how much you care about other peoples race.

His motives are not the question - the issue is where the genesis of those motives come from - you have stated they come from his race. He is whining because he is white.

Again, there is a word for that - where you ascribe motives, thoughts, attributes, and characteristics to people based on their race.

Yeah middle distance runners are twats, sprinters on the other hand are enormous dicks.

[garbon]

I do not count garbon who is quite demonstrably only in it for cheap laughs, obviously. Not better than Jaron in that regard, only that Jaron was funny. For some inexplicable reason g is taken seriously?

Probably best if you don't try to ascertain people's motives. You are pretty terrible at it if that post is any indication.

Oh, now that is rich, coming from Mr. "white whine".

Del's motivation was pretty transparent as he stated it beforehand. He doesn't 'give a fuck about race'.  I'd love to be able to not give a fuck too.

You have made it very clear how much you care about other peoples race.

His motives are not the question - the issue is where the genesis of those motives come from - you have stated they come from his race. He is whining because he is white.

Again, there is a word for that - where you ascribe motives, thoughts, attributes, and characteristics to people based on their race.

No, I don't.

[Eddie Teach]

Garbon enjoys being contrarian, but I don't think he gets many laughs out of it.