Meh. Just not much interested in your posts. — Banno

Sure, because you know that a reasonable exchange between us ends up with you looking to fool.

But you are interested in accusing me if being companions with someone, who I spoke to once, that was banned for using racial slurs, without reading my posts?

Everytime you respond to me, you end up looking biased and stupid.

Yep. You win. Cheers.




(What was that about?)

In short, either white privilege is real and denying it is denying its victims, or white privilege isn't real in which case we should see no evidence of it. Not sure how you're missing the connection here. If I live in a racist society, and I am advantaged by that, and I refute the existence of that racism, I am protecting a racist society, therefore am racist. — Kenosha Kid

If you live in a racist society, you're a racist. Duh! Everything else you said is totally irrelevant. Do you live in a racist society, KK? If all of society were racist, then you wouldn't have black presidents, vice-presidents, judges, and congressmen. So what society you're talking about could only be one that exists in your head.

Thought you weren't interested in reading my posts?

Anyways. I'm not interested in "winning", like you. You think this is a game, obviously. I'm simply interested in having a intellectually honest conversation, but you don't seem to understand the concept.

It's more like, 'you failed to condemn calls to violence by BLM - so your condemnation of calls to violence on Parler is an hypocrisy' - but it's not a failure to live up to your own standards. Hypocrisy is your standards. Rather, my appeal is to human rights; as in freedom of conscience and expression.

calls to violence by BLM - — counterpunch

BLM never called for violence. They did their best to quell it.

What I did or didn't do is irrelevant to the questions I posed to you, which you still haven't answered. Try again: Do you think that's PC gone wild? Do we really need to give people promoting violence the ability to reach thousands of likeminded idiots?

BLM never called for violence. They did their best to quell it — frank

Except for the violence at the marches, and the rioting, and the arson, etc. I suppose those instances of violence were "politically relevant" and therefore...not violent somehow? I will not say I am deeply versed in the Black Lives Matter movement (All lives matter equally. Which means someone will say I am racist because I believe in equality of people.) however, from a distance, a movement which espouses the injustices done against it, protests those injustices, in the form of social justice, media response, marches and rioting...is it BLM or Trump VS the election? Because from the outside....pretty similar responses by those "wronged".

Do we really need to give people promoting violence the ability to reach thousands of likeminded idiots? — Benkei

Which violence promoting group are we speaking of? radical left, radical right, radically angry?

BLM never called for violence. They did their best to quell it. — frank

And not everyone at the Capitol was rioting. The fact that people can make these distinctions for one side and not the other is just more evidence of the propaganda bubbles that they live in.

But then, the Boston Tea Party was branded a riot at the time - the American and French revolutions began with riots. One man's terrorist is another man's martyr. This is the subjective nature of ethics/politics. This is why we need more level heads, that aren't emotionally invested in their assertions, and aren't trying to speak for others that they don't know, to have a reasonable discussion.

A simple solution would be to abolish political parties. That would ease the division between us, but division is what the Dems and Reps need to stay viable. So it is no surprise that they are the ones stoking that division and then people like KK, Banno and Michael are just a few of the pawns in their game. A truly woke person is one that realizes they've been a pawn and refuses to be one any longer.

Wouldn't that be nice eh! Recognize another's opinion as as valid as one's own and try to find commonality to work together toward general improvement. I could handle seeing more of that.

Scroll up, (or even move back a page in the meantime), check the post by jorndoe I referenced and let me know whether having a platform enabling that sort of stuff should stay up.

Or if we put it in the indivualistic, capitalist terms of freedom of choice, if I run Amazon and I disagree with those views, why should I continue to provide services to it?

The laissez-faire capitalist, unlimited freedom of speech right wingers can't have it both. If we can vote and speak with our dollars and if that means you can't talk about assassinations anymore, you haven't been censored because you can start your own hosting company, own chat program etc. etc.

But that way lies the total disintegration of society.

I sincerely believe that to burst those echo bubbles, the only way forward is to demand interoperabililty between all messenger apps and social networks. Enforce a standard communication protocol so that if I post something on twitter it can be picked up and shared everywhere directly - so someone using facebook can directly subscribe to my Twitter feed and have it show up there. And then prohibit all the targeted ads, news and videos so that whatever is just trending on every social network taken together is visible and not that the only shit you get shovelled looks like the shit you looked at 5 seconds ago.

Except for the violence at the marches, and the rioting, and the arson, etc. — Book273

BLM never called for violence.

BLM never called for violence. They did their best to quell it. — frank

Sure, yet that's a bit problematic. Especially "their best to quell it" part.

For starters, If they would have a clearer organization with a far more active leadership, they could argue that they are in charge of BLM. Yet I think they wisely understand that it's not the way to go: if the leadership would take central stage, go on a media circus, they would likely just start to annoy people. Now there's a) those who call themselves as official BLM b) those who support BLM, but don't have links to a) and c) those who loosely support basically agenda. All actors a), b) and c) are viewed as BLM. And I guess many that actually aren't.

How many know Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi?


These times organizations or movements, just like the militant Trumpists, start from denying having any involvement in anything that would make them look bad. The 'direct action' wings are always kept separately. The right-wing extremists have perfected with the "lone nut" terrorist: the terrorist that takes great care that he cannot be linked to organizations that he supports (like being an official member etc.), which simply would mean that the organization would be disbanded as a terrorist organization. Even the FBI has said that this is the modus operandi.

So things happen like this: BLM later denies that they have anything to do with those branches of BLM that do make stupid comments, like one founder of Greater Branch of New York BLM, Mr Newsome:

"if this country doesn't give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right? And I could be speaking ... figuratively. I could be speaking literally. It's a matter of interpretation.

"Let's observe the history of the 1960s, when black people were rioting," he went on. "We had the highest growth in wealth, in property ownership. Think about the last few weeks since we started protesting. There have been eight cops fired across the country."

"I don't condone nor do I condemn rioting," Newsome added. "But I'm just telling you what I observed."

And not everyone at the Capitol was rioting. The fact that people can make these distinctions for one side and not the other is just more evidence of the propaganda bubbles that they live in.

But then, the Boston Tea Party was branded a riot at the time - the American and French revolutions began with riots. One man's terrorist is another man's martyr. This is the subjective nature of ethics/politics. This is why we need more level heads, that aren't emotionally invested in their assertions, and aren't trying to speak for others that they don't know, to have a reasonable discussion.

A simple solution would be to abolish political parties. That would ease the division between us, but division is what the Dems and Reps need to stay viable. So it is no surprise that they are the ones stoking that division and then people like KK, Banno and Michael are just a few of the pawns in their game. A truly woke person is one that realizes they've been a pawn and refuses to be one any longer. — Harry Hindu

There can be different interpretation of facts but when people believe lies despite the availability of facts to the contrary there is no subjective nature to discuss.

That said, assertions how other people are pawns is being emotionally invested in your own assertions as well. So by pretending you're above it all, you just demonstrate you're completely in the same game as those you tell yourselves it's ok to ignore.

A truly woke person is one that realizes they've been a pawn and refuses to be one any longer. — Harry Hindu

A truly woke person realizes their pawnship and navigates within that role to peace, joy, and a fern garden with lots of moss and a little buddha statue at the end of the path that leads from the rock garden in a world where the weather has become the water feature due to el nino.

What were we talking about?

If you live in a racist society, you're a racist. Duh! — Harry Hindu

That is not what I wrote.

So things go like with BLM later denying that they have anything to do with those branches of BLM that do make stupid comments, — ssu

It's not about denying comments. During the Floyd marches they did their best to quell violence.

neither did trump eh.

neither did trump eh. — Book273

Canada?

Canada.

Shout out to the Great White North

During the Floyd marches they did their best to quell violence. — frank

Ok.

And what was their best? This is a sincere question, because I didn't notice that in media at the time. If you have links, I'd be happy about that. This is simply something that I don't know.

I don't think those three women have power over those who go to a BLM demonstration.

And what was their best? This is a sincere question, because I didn't notice that in media at the time. — ssu

I'll look for it.

I would prefer to see all the social network sites get shutdown. We can go meet our neighbours again, engage in our communities. When the shit hits your online social network won't likely show up on your doorstep asking if you need a hand or offering you a place to stay and a meal, but your neighbour across the street might. Build community, not "likes".

Thanks eh! Back at you.

That genie is out of the bottle, I'm afraid. And one does not (and should not) preclude the other. I do like playing scrabble with my mom on the phone and easily chatting with my dad via Signal and share news, ideas etc. Group chats are usually totally useless though.

I notice among my age peers (40+) that they're trying to downsize on all the social networks, phone time etc. anyway. I suspect for kids growing up with this the novelty will wear off even sooner.

this is my "social media".

I notice among my age peers (40+) that they're trying to downsize on all the social networks, phone time etc. anyway. I suspect for kids growing up with this the novelty will wear off even sooner. — Benkei

Interestingly, as my 70-year old former lefty mother has become increasingly right-wing, she's embraced social media more and more.

Makes sense, any right wing views online result in online lefty hatred, which is easily ignored. In person lefty violence is harder to ignore. Sounds like your mother has wisdom. She is more free to be herself online. Good for her.