The last words of Elijah McClain, murdered by police:



Fuck police violence, and fuck all cops.

May these protests get infinitely 'stupider', forever.

And may people who, in the face of the above, worry about 'microagressions' or burning cloth, go straight to the ninth level of hell.

My 'motive' is that you literally have no idea what you are talking about. The attempt to frame systemic racism as a matter of belief is so ignorant as to defy serious conversation. Perhaps rather than trying to fit real world violence into your little pet-philosophical project which you've been wrangling to no avail for years - a disgusting bit of curve-fitting that intellectualizes real life hurt - you might actually educate yourself rather than mouthing off about things of which your ignorance is embarrassing. Here's a reading to get you started:

"Race is a social construction; racism is a function of social behaviors and relations. Racist ideologies are not the cause of systems, institutions or actions that perpetuate or exacerbate racialized inequality – they are produced to justify and legitimize these states of affairs. In other words, the actual practice of racialized group-making and inter-group competition is more fundamental than the popular discourses and ideologies which frame them. Yet many contemporary antiracist efforts -- especially among highly-educated, relatively well-off, white liberals – focus primarily on ‘hearts and minds’ (beliefs, intentions, attitudes, feelings), symbols and rhetoric. Antiracism has largely shifted from a sociological project (focused on institutions, behaviors, the distribution of resources, etc.) into a psychological one. Even sociologists seem to be increasingly adopting psychologized frameworks for understanding.

...Awareness of systemic racism does not cleanly translate into actual behaviors that reduce inequality -- neither does supporting racial egalitarianism through words, beliefs or feelings. Indeed, among the primary beneficiaries and perpetuators of systemic racism today are whites who are already convinced of their privilege -- who both understand and lament the disadvantages people of color face. It is precisely these convictions that blind them to their own role in reinforcing racialized inequality, thereby pushing them to look externally to identify culpable parties (i.e. the problem must be the ‘bad’ people who say, feel, or believe the ‘wrong’ things about others from historically marginalized or disadvantaged groups)." (my bolding)

https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/wd54z/

They're people. Some are horrible. Yet we don't condemn all people as a result. Regardless the sentiment and fact the incident behind it is open and available is just as strong a rallying cry for free speech, independent media, and related values in general including law and order. And the goal should not be against one specific place but rather the world itself.

Maybe there is a problem. Cops are authority and it is a fact that weakness, true weakness, no matter how big or strong an individual is, naturally seeks power. Inadequacy seeks adequacy. The purposeless seeks the purposeful. A larger problem would be authority in a system that denies all of these things including accountability. Maybe it's not. We wouldn't know!

Otherwise war is just murder and soldiers are just murderers. — BitconnectCarlos

Exactly. I've always found the just war tradition a convenient excuse for murder. There's an intent behind the theory that's laudable but it's practical implementation has been one of cynical abuse.

The only worthwhile rule to remember is reciprocity. Don't do unto your enemies what you don't want them to do to you or your people. Which is why nowadays it's perfectly fine to torture American soldiers since apparently subsequent US regimes have condoned it. But I digress.

I'm not sure in any case if it makes sense to apply just war doctrine to a situation like this. A group of people is slowly murdered and looted with impunity, it's "enemy" is the society they live in and are supposed to be a part of. It's all rather academic since a majority of people in the US seem to be ready to embrace some of the changes necessary.

Even so, let's take the examples of the Jews in 1940. Your argument that it wouldn't be effective isn't an argument against the moral right of the Jews back then to bomb and burn buildings indiscriminately as they were murdered indiscriminately by the State apparatus supported by the German people; either actively or by doing nothing.

And there's a parallel there with modern times in that it isn't enough to not be a racist but to be actively anti-racist. It wasn't enough not to be a Nazi but to be anti-Nazi. That's the only way to stop racism.

So you think Americans will be divided by the use of flag?
— ssu

I don't know. It's possible. You'd have to ask them. But to me any flag is only as important and valuable as it's recognized as being so across different sectors of society as well as within them. If there's a schism on that then, yes, they'll be divided. — Baden

I took this example up as this is one way an artificial division or juxtaposition of "the people" can be done in the "culture wars". I know, perhaps it seems not to be the correct thread, but the reason why I mention it is that it's these kind of small issues that actually will be used in the public debate. And these small issues then chip away from a true consensus about the bigger issues at hand. Think of it as noise that has the ability to separate us and loose focus. Because my simple question is: the US has been here many times, so why hasn't much anything happened before?

Symbols that are intended to be unifying are deliberately made to be divisive. When you say "any flag is only as important and valuable as it's recognized as being so across different sectors of society as well as within them", you also give the reason just why flags are and will be attacked. And there's several reasons why.

Just like kneeling when the national anthem is played was made deliberately by Trump an issue (which I find absurd, because kneeling is far more polite than just sitting down), earlier the same shtick was used by the older George Bush when he tried to ban the burning of the flag (which was shot down by the supreme court). Both actions were intended to get a response from liberals and for conservatives to notice how different liberals are. Unfortunately it doesn't end there. Naturally the extreme right wants to own such national symbols and try to make the absurd claim that they are the only ones defending such symbols. As if there weren't leftists/centrist or others who do love their country. And in a macabre twist the extreme left is an ardent supporter of this view that indeed yes, those symbols of national unity aren't symbols of unity at all, but racist and fascist symbols of the extreme right. As, of course, the state represents basically fascism. Yet when you think of it, it's obvious that extremists are against anything that has unified us. That the symbol has been unifying is an obstacle for their agenda.

And that's why I think flag burning could be the next small issue that the media takes interest. Or that the next absurd thing will be that "flying the national flag is racist, because you show your approval of the inherent racism of the US state". Such nonsense can get noticed, because both on the left and the right there will be people that will be pleased with that absurd line if it would catch the public discourse. I hope it doesn't.

The question is why you are so terrified over what 'the right' thinks. That 'the right' is a regressive force which stands for nothing but sucking the dick of the rich and powerful is simply a given: a strong reaction on their part is a sign of going in exactly in the correct direction, of doing exactly what is needed. The more terrified they are, the better. The only worry is what happens when 'the right' begins to agree with you - it's a sign that something is terribly wrong, and a mistake has been made somewhere. Consensus is the sure sign of a wrong move.

As for the whole 'unity' shtick - those who say peace when there is no peace say nothing at all.

As for the whole 'unity' shtick - those who say peace when there is no peace is say nothing at all. — StreetlightX

Stop thinking that your country is in a civil war. You'll really notice it if there's a real one. Have you even seen war?

Oh the irony in liberal leftists being a cause of rather then the solution to systemic racism.

"Alternatively, consider schooling: New York City swings decisively “blue” yet has one of the most racially-segregated school systems in the entire country (Harris & Fessenden 2017). There is a widespread perception among elites that education deficits are the primary driver of inequality – rather than the relationship working the other way around (Hanauer 2019); there is also widespread support, in principle, for public schools. Yet few relatively well-off whites in New York City send their own children to their zoned public school (Douglas 2017). Many send their kids to private schools that charge tuition of tens-of-thousands per year but nonetheless market themselves as social-justice oriented institutions
(Robin 2015). Others send their children to elite public schools, often outside their residential zone. These parents tend to vigorously oppose attempts by the city to increase students of color at these schools – be it through reserving places for low-income and/or minority students (Hylton 2018), including
considerations of race or income in admissions, or reducing importance of standardized tests in admission decisions (Ali & Chin 2018). Granted, this opposition is not usually grounded in antipathy towards blacks or Hispanics, but out of a drive to see their own children succeed (albeit, even at others’ expense). Yet this is, fundamentally, how systemic racism operates."

I found this to be especially revealing and also very recognizable. A lot of systemic inequality probably flows from this alone... social networks that are build up in schools are probably one of the key factors that determine professional succes later on.

It's hard to see how you would solve this though, I don't see people voluntarily choosing not to try to give their kids a head start in life....

Again, not my country. And if you need to wait for someone to declare 'civil war' then you've already lost. You don't wait for a holocaust before deciding maybe that things are not so good. And given the systematic murder of blacks in the US, perhaps your worrying about flags, is just bullshit irrelavence by way of contrast.

Oh the irony in liberal leftists being a cause of rather then the solution to systemic racism. — ChatteringMonkey

There's no irony friend. You're just uneducated on the distinction between liberals and leftists.

The article is helpful in providing some concrete tips for praxis.

Again, not my country. And if you need to wait for someone to declare 'civil war' then you've already lost. You don't wait for a holocaust before deciding maybe that things are not so good. — StreetlightX

Yes, I remember that you were our angry Australian.

I'm quite sure a holocaust won't happen soon either in your or my country or in the US. Sorry if I annoy with the talk that civil wars should be prevented and that the underlying issues causing them can be tackled another way. In the US there's a lot of talk about everything ending up in a civil war, but I gather that the richest country in the World still has a long way to go in ruining their country before that outcome would be inevitable.

And I believe that terrifying someone into submission usually doesn't work, sorry.

It's hard to see how you would solve this though, I don't see people voluntarily choosing not to try to give their kids a head start in life.... — ChatteringMonkey

People and their freaking kids. There should be, simply because there is, nothing special about their own child compared to a neighbors or even some kid halfway across the world for that matter. It's the cancerous, parasitic atheist mindset that when you die you cease to exist in any and all forms. So they desperately try to prolong any idea of themselves through reproduction. They push not only all their failed dreams, pursuits, and expectations on them but all their regrets, fears, and mental complexes on them as well. It is abuse in its purest form. Those who seek to be first, shall be last. And even that is only because I don't have a proper say yet.

And I believe that terrifying someone into submission usually doesn't work, sorry. — ssu

Then you don't know history and should probably stop talking. When the ruling class get scared, that's when massive, systemic change happens - everytime.

Oh the irony in liberal leftists being a cause of rather then the solution to systemic racism.
— ChatteringMonkey

There's no irony friend. You're just uneducated on the distinction between liberals and leftists.

The article is helpful in providing some concrete tips for praxis. — StreetlightX

Ok the article spoke of left-leaning, which is mostly liberal in your mind I presume... and not the true left.

The tips could probably make a difference, yes. The problem is that I don't see people voluntarily choosing to do so because there is a real cost to it. The article states that it is sort of a collective action problem, and I think that is a good way of looking at it... which makes me think that you needs some government intervention probably, or some incentive to change those behaviors.

It's hard to see how you would solve this though, I don't see people voluntarily choosing not to try to give their kids a head start in life....
— ChatteringMonkey

People and their freaking kids. There should be, simply because there is, nothing special about their own child compared to a neighbors or even some kid halfway across the world for that matter. It's the cancerous, parasitic atheist mindset that when you die you cease to exist in any and all forms. So they desperately try to prolong any idea of themselves through reproduction. They push not only all their failed dreams, pursuits, and expectations on them but all their regrets, fears, and mental complexes on them as well. It is abuse in its purest form. Those who seek to be first, shall be last. And even that is only because I don't have a proper say yet. — Outlander

You think people favoring their kids is a consequence of atheism... or of any sort of ideology even? You don't think there's some biological component to it, so that trying to change that behavior will be an up-hill battle?

The article states that it is sort of a collective action problem, and I think that is a good way of looking at it... which makes me think that you needs some government intervention probably, or some incentive to change those behaviors. — ChatteringMonkey

Yeah, it is absolutely a collective action problem (but then again all politics is!). I do think state action can play an important role (part of what you're seeing happening in the US right now is a total failure of state policy), but politics can't stop at the edge of government - it also needs individual leadership, a diffusion of ideas, money and funding, and so on. Ideally, working symbiotically with each other. The incentives are indeed skewed right now. Systemic racism requires systemic solutions. It cannot come (just) from good-willed individuals. If you have the time, there are some really interesting proposals peppered throughout this talk which is among the most astute analyses of the current situation I know. I linked the bit where race comes into explicit discussion. Basic message: race needs to be thought together with political economy or not at all.

Perhaps. If "my" kid was switched at birth.. well, you can see from that as I wouldn't know it's psychological more than anything. Yes?

Physiological, perhaps. Characteristics of both without being exclusively one or the other

I'll look at it, thanks for the reference.

↪ChatteringMonkey

Perhaps. If "my" kid was switched at birth.. well, you can see from that as I wouldn't know it's psychological more than anything. Yes?

Physiological, perhaps. Characteristics of both without being exclusively one or the other — Outlander

Yes sure it's mainly psychological, but that doesn't mean that it is that easily changed. Like, I don't really believe in the Peter Singers of this world that say that proximity should play no role in moral considerations. The affects we develop for people we know in person play a role in motivating us to be moral in the first place. I don't think you can just do away with that without losing something that is essential to it.

Then you don't know history and should probably stop talking. When the ruling class get scared, that's when massive, systemic change happens - everytime. — StreetlightX

Who gets scared is the question.

You think the ruling class gets scared about some riots? And that massive systemic change is going to happen?

The ruling class is shitting their pants and if you can't see that you're either not looking or an idiot. Every one of them is scrambling to show some kind of solidarity with the protestors - faked or otherwise. Even a fuckbag like Trump was prompted to gesture his way into some barely-there police reforms. And the display of brutal, racist police forces to quell the riots are just a sign of ruling class weakness.

As for what's going to happen, who the hell knows. Politics is a risk. Things could get worse. Things will probably get worse. But if that change doesn't happen, things will get worse. That one's a given. Meanwhile I'm going to tell everyone worrying about star-striped fabric to go fuck themselves.

And on the topic of 'individual responsibility' - I wonder what responsibility Breonna Taylor should have taken as she was gunned down as she slept. Guess she should have been more responsible for being black.

better police training and screening, there was a video I watched showing that American cops need only 5 months of school after high school but in Norway they need 3 years

The ruling class is shitting their pants and if you can't see that you're either not looking or an idiot. Every one of them is scrambling to show some kind of solidarity with the protestors - faked or otherwise. Even a fuckbag like Trump was prompted to gesture his way into some barely-there police reforms. And the display of brutal, racist police forces to quell the riots are just a sign of ruling class weakness. — StreetlightX

:smile:

I didn't know it was 1789.

Wait a minute,
it isn't!

Most of your responses in the thread have been a long form version of that. "It can't be like that now, it's not then!"

Well, it seems that many people think that they are on a cusp of a massive Earth-moving change.

Don't you hope for all their hopes to come true?

Don't you hope for all their hopes to come true? — fdrake

Their hopes or our hopes?

Is there someone for racism? Not here, not many out there.

Is there someone for more inequality? Again no.

It's easy to see what the problems are, more difficult to say what exactly works for the most complex questions.

Is there someone for racism? Not here, not many out there. — ssu

You will never get a socially conscious racist to defend racism. It will always always always be a reaction to negate any specific anti-racist thing.

Is there someone for more inequality? Again no. — ssu

You will never get a socially conscious politician to defend inequality. It will always always always be a reaction to negate any specific equalising measure.

Do you need someone in a position of authority to brand America with a KKK hood in order for you to see it as systemically racist? And in order for your hope for it to be less racist to swamp the tiny number of property destructions compared to the size of the uprising?