If you live in the United States, you should be disgusted with your country - Page 9

**McTahr** · 11-26-2014, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

I'll respectfully disagree with you there, I think Malcolm X and all his rage had a far more positive impact on American history than MLK Jr., who quickly -- after death, and certainly against his wishes, but still -- became a Conservative White American symbol of "Colorblindness" and "tolerance" as the barometers of our supposedly overcoming racism.

He later disavowed his harsher stances while supporting his primary beliefs of solidarity and the like.

---

Edit: On the However, I'm reading through this, Rick, not meaning to ignore your point, I just want to read and digest before responding. Basically, I do see what you mean and I do see where it's necessarily wrong to posit MLK as an example here. It was a mostly random choice, as he was the first social leader I could think of off-hand. I would have just as readily used someone such as Susan B. Anthony or someone similar. I meant any social movement. Not just those that are racially fueled.

Nikose Tyris · 11-26-2014, 01:43 PM

http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/0...int-or-sinner/

Although credited with leading India to independence from Britain, Gandhi actually undermined this effort. Between 1900 and 1922, he *suspended his civil disobedience at least three times, even though more than 15,000 supporters were in jail for the cause. (When Britain finally did withdraw from India, it was largely motivated by their anti-imperialist Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, and the fact that Britain was nearly bankrupt from the war.)

Gandhi was dangerously politically incompetent. He *advised the Jews to adopt nonviolence toward the Nazis, and wrote a letter to *Hitler starting with the words “My friend”. He also advised the Jews of Palestine to “rely on the goodwill of the Arabs”. Fortunately for their existence, the Jews ignored him.
As well as calling Hitler his friend, Gandhi and Mussolini got on well when they met in December 1931. Gandhi praised Mussolini’s “service to the poor, his opposition to super-urbanization, his efforts to bring about a coordination between Capital and *Labour, his passionate love for his people.”

Gandhi was outstandingly racist, describing “the raw Kaffir” as someone “whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a number of cattle to buy a wife, and then pass his life in indolence and *nakedness,” and saying of white Afrikaaners, “We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they do.”
He was also a hypocrite on many levels. He prevented his son marrying a Muslim despite publicly promoting Muslim-Hindu unity. He denounced lawyers, railways and parliamentary politics, yet he was a professional lawyer who constantly used railways to get to meetings to argue that India *deserved its own parliament. And although he is known for his hunger strikes, his official position was that these were “the worst form of coercion, which militates against the fundamental principles of non-violence” (in which he believed).

Gandhi was a racist, misogynist, all around awful dude. He promoted solidarity with the oppressors and abusers, and for the downtrodden to give up and be crushed.

So no I don't think that's a very valid point.

RickZarber · 11-26-2014, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McTahr

On the However, I'm reading through this, Rick, not meaning to ignore your point, I just want to read and digest before responding. Basically, I do see what you mean and I do see where it's necessarily wrong to posit MLK as an example here. It was a mostly random choice, as he was the first social leader I could think of off-hand. I would have just as readily used someone such as Susan B. Anthony or someone similar. I meant any social movement. Not just those that are racially fueled.

Yeah, like, I wasn't necessarily trying to argue a point (I don't feel equipped to engage in meaningful discussion, really). I just thought it was a relevant time to interject something I thought people should read.

**McTahr** · 11-26-2014, 01:48 PM

Boy, isn't my extensive American education getting shot to hell here today. (I spent the last decade studying physics/chemistry/biology rather than history or social issues, any social learning I've done has had to be done in what little spare time I've had, and clearly woefully incomplete.)

Point, Nikose. Gandhi was also a terrible example.

Basically, what I was even trying to get across here was that in the narrow context of this forum, polarizing your fellow forumites with rage is pretty much the surest way to not achieve dick.

Red Mage Black · 11-26-2014, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

...Of course he did.

You know why, don't you?
You know why Officer Wilson testified.

He wasn't being grilled by the Prosecution.
Read all those excerpts again.
The Prosecution's attorneys were acting as Officer Wilson's defense attorneys.

Oh noes everyonez
I and the eeevvviiillll liberal media are sensationalizing the actual dialogue between Wilson and the DAs
Read the fucking evidence before you make a fool out of yourself, just once, JUST ONCE, RMB, I'm begging you.

Okay, he wasn't carrying a tazer. That makes sense why he only had his gun. Police stations are allocated only a certain amount of resources, mostly based around a quota, from what I understand and it's true not all police officers carry them around. Ferguson,MO is certainly not unique in this or the thought they're overly clunky and weighty. I don't see the point of pointing out this testimony.

Mike Brown also had about 90lb. on Wilson and was a bit larger. Just to point it out, the cigarillos not breaking doesn't mean much of anything really. I could punch you with a pack of smokes in my hand too and not break them. It all depends on how how you're holding the pack.

You're really not proving anything. How about witness testimony instead or does that change too much for you to use as evidence? There are witnesses saying he was shot in the back when the autopsy report proves that false.

Mike Brown wasn't fleeing from the officer. His friend ran off when he decided to escalate things.

I'm also not seeing what MLK, Malcom X or Gandhi has anything to do with this case. Brown is not a martyr and burning down half the city will do nothing for the cause of social justice.

EDIT: In fact, the sentiment of, "It hurts my feelings when somebody disagrees with me," does nothing to help it either. Neither is raging at the opposition.

Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope · 11-26-2014, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McTahr

Gandhi was shot too. That doesn't mean we go to war in absolute direct opposition to everything they have taught us.

I'm not saying anyone is necessarily wrong or unjustified in being angry or lashing out. Fuck yes get mad. This is the kind of thing we should be very angry about.

But turn that anger towards something useful. Lashing out only polarizes those opposing even further and creates a gulf between the two.

Ghandi may have brought independence to India, but he was also an admirer of Hitler, hated blacks and believed in India's caste system.

I ask you McTahr, If you were in the position that the black americans are stuck in right now, where the authority can prey upon and attack you and get protected, do you not see you lashing out. Sometimes violence is the answer when diplomacy has failed

Nikose Tyris · 11-26-2014, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McTahr

Basically, what I was even trying to get across here was that in the narrow context of this forum, polarizing your fellow forumites with rage is pretty much the surest way to not achieve dick.

I agree. I mostly want people to see things, be informed, and observe a clear case of massive legal bias and racism inherent in the system, and to help work towards a change in that.

But when people persist to not see what is written plainly and not fight for that change, and are complacent, you become part of the problem. The silent majority that helps justify what's happening and prevents change.

I don't want rage. I want people to become catalysts of change.

Token · 11-26-2014, 01:57 PM

Took some time, tried the whole not angry thing. This is about as calm as I'm gonna get here.

I am sick and tired of seeing this shit play over again and again. There is no room or reason for "peaceful discourse" with people who are making excuses for and supporting modern day lynchings. People like that legitimately don't see people like me as people, and if calm and collected responses carefully measured not to hurt their feelings actually worked, none of us (and by us I mean society as a whole, not just this forum) would be in this position. Violence and vitriol are the only languages you understand, or at least the only ones you're willing to communicate to us with!

We are DYING, and you're sitting there telling us that people supporting and making justifications for our murderers are deserving of our respect instead of our anger? You pull the fucking MLK card, when all peace got him was a bullet through the fucking face, and an eternity of being used and twisted by whites into some hippie negro uncle tom?

There is no possible way for both sides to exist in harmony when one side is dismissing the fact that cops are constantly more violent towards blacks than whites, the fact that they are trained to profile racial minorities, the fact that breaking even more laws in the act of covering up a murder apparently isn't a crime if the victim is black! How are we supposed to peacefully coexist with people who through their words and action continually show that they view us as subhuman?

Time and time again the staff of this forum has shown that despite their claims of wanting a peaceful community, they only really care about shutting up minorities. Queer, black, trans, disabled, it doesn't fucking matter, you're not allowed to be angry at people who passively sit by and let this shit happen day after day. I don't know what sense of misguided nostalgia or whatever has kept aking me give this bigoted shithole a chance, but I'm done with it. You can all go burn your crosses on someone else's lawn, and I hope you fuckers all burn down with it.

Solid Snake · 11-26-2014, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Mage Black

Okay, he wasn't carrying a tazer. That makes sense why he only had his gun. Police stations are allocated only a certain amount of resources, mostly based around a quota, from what I understand and it's true not all police officers carry them around.

Wilson himself reported that a taser was available for his personal use but he chose not to carry them because he personally dislikes wielding them. Apparently they're too bulky for him.

Quote:

I don't see the point of pointing out this testimony.

You are missing the point, and the point is this:

It isn't about what Wilson's saying, it's about the fact that the DA's aren't grilling him over what he's saying.
When Wilson mentions he's personally uncomfortable with a taser for some reason, the Prosecution should absolutely be firing bombs back at him. The fact that the Prosecution is repeatedly coddling him instead is a sign that the Prosecution is acting as Wilson's ally and not trying to indict him.

They're not making Wilson uncomfortable, putting him on the spot, asking awkward or uncomfortable questions about why Wilson chose to do X or didn't do Y or Z.
And that is EXACTLY what the Prosecution is supposed to do here, WHETHER YOU PERSONALLY AGREE WITH THE UNDERLYING LOGIC OR NOT.

The DAs are supposed to be the state's ally, and the state is supposed to align its interests with the victim and against the defendant. How is an adversarial judicial system difficult to understand?

Quote:

Mike Brown also had about 90lb. on Wilson and was a bit larger. Just to point it out, the cigarillos not breaking doesn't mean much of anything really. I could punch you with a pack of smokes in my hand too and not break them. It all depends on how how you're holding the pack.

Oh for FUCK's sake.
This is why I'm a lawyer who's been trained in this manner of thinking and you apparently are not.
The point isn't whether or not he could be holding the cigarillos. The point is that WILSON'S STORY CHANGES OR IS "EVOLVING" ON THE SPOT AND THE PROSECUTION DOESN'T CALL HIM OUT ON IT, THEY'RE ACTUALLY HELPING HIM GET HIS BEARINGS STRAIGHT SO HE CAN 'MODIFY' THE STORY AS THEY GENTLY POINT OUT THE INCONSISTENCY AND GIVE HIM TIME TO SELF-CORRECT. THIS IS A TIME-HONORED STRATEGY ATTORNEYS EMPLOY TO BENEFIT THEIR CLIENTS AND FRIENDLY WITNESSES WHO FUCK UP ON THE WITNESS STAND.

This is evidenced by the fact that Wilson doesn't ultimately reaffirm a claim that the cigarillos were really in Brown's right hand all along -- they shift to his left hand, then all the sudden NOPE! Brown called his buddy over to take the stuff beforehand.

**McTahr** · 11-26-2014, 02:04 PM

Nikose,
Exactly. We're in agreement. I'm not calling for complacency or for people to sit back down. I'm trying to say that people should take this rage, and use it to fuel some actual change. Do something with it. Go forth and change minds. If the populace majority believes this, it's harder to get away with.

Daimo,
This exact thing was brought up by Nikose and I pretty much nodded that yep, it was a pretty shitty example.

I cannot realistically answer that question. I do not have the experience a lifetime of dehumanization and oppression in order to appropriately answer that question. I am angry. I am angry to the point that I shake with rage when I talk about these issues, especially with those who think nothing is wrong or want to maintain the status quo. However, I do everything in my power to try and convince and convert rather than polarize and drive away.

I cannot, with respect to their entire culture, claim that I would or would not necessarily have the patience to do so were I in their shoes. I just simply do not have that experience. That's why I'm not trying to say they're wrong for being angry. They have every right to be and I'm not going to say they shouldn't rage or lash out.
I'm simply saying it's probably counterproductive in most cases.

11-26-2014, 01:48 PM	#84
McTahr For the right price... Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,268	Boy, isn't my extensive American education getting shot to hell here today. (I spent the last decade studying physics/chemistry/biology rather than history or social issues, any social learning I've done has had to be done in what little spare time I've had, and clearly woefully incomplete.) Point, Nikose. Gandhi was also a terrible example. Basically, what I was even trying to get across here was that in the narrow context of this forum, polarizing your fellow forumites with rage is pretty much the surest way to not achieve dick. __________________ Gone.

11-26-2014, 02:04 PM	#90
McTahr For the right price... Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,268	Nikose, Exactly. We're in agreement. I'm not calling for complacency or for people to sit back down. I'm trying to say that people should take this rage, and use it to fuel some actual change. Do something with it. Go forth and change minds. If the populace majority believes this, it's harder to get away with. Daimo, This exact thing was brought up by Nikose and I pretty much nodded that yep, it was a pretty shitty example. I cannot realistically answer that question. I do not have the experience a lifetime of dehumanization and oppression in order to appropriately answer that question. I am angry. I am angry to the point that I shake with rage when I talk about these issues, especially with those who think nothing is wrong or want to maintain the status quo. However, I do everything in my power to try and convince and convert rather than polarize and drive away. I cannot, with respect to their entire culture, claim that I would or would not necessarily have the patience to do so were I in their shoes. I just simply do not have that experience. That's why I'm not trying to say they're wrong for being angry. They have every right to be and I'm not going to say they shouldn't rage or lash out. I'm simply saying it's probably counterproductive in most cases. __________________ Gone.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-26-2014, 01:43 PM	#82
Nikose Tyris Trash Goblin Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Coldwater, Ontario Posts: 6,433	http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/0...int-or-sinner/ Although credited with leading India to independence from Britain, Gandhi actually undermined this effort. Between 1900 and 1922, he suspended his civil disobedience at least three times, even though more than 15,000 supporters were in jail for the cause. (When Britain finally did withdraw from India, it was largely motivated by their anti-imperialist Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, and the fact that Britain was nearly bankrupt from the war.) Gandhi was dangerously politically incompetent. He advised the Jews to adopt nonviolence toward the Nazis, and wrote a letter to Hitler starting with the words “My friend”. He also advised the Jews of Palestine to “rely on the goodwill of the Arabs”. Fortunately for their existence, the Jews ignored him. As well as calling Hitler his friend, Gandhi and Mussolini got on well when they met in December 1931. Gandhi praised Mussolini’s “service to the poor, his opposition to super-urbanization, his efforts to bring about a coordination between Capital and Labour, his passionate love for his people.” Gandhi was outstandingly racist, describing “the raw Kaffir” as someone “whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a number of cattle to buy a wife, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness,” and saying of white Afrikaaners, “We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they do.” He was also a hypocrite on many levels. He prevented his son marrying a Muslim despite publicly promoting Muslim-Hindu unity. He denounced lawyers, railways and parliamentary politics, yet he was a professional lawyer who constantly used railways to get to meetings to argue that India deserved its own parliament. And although he is known for his hunger strikes, his official position was that these were “the worst form of coercion, which militates against the fundamental principles of non-violence” (in which he believed). Gandhi was a racist, misogynist, all around awful dude. He promoted solidarity with the oppressors and abusers, and for the downtrodden to give up and be crushed. So no I don't think that's a very valid point.

11-26-2014, 01:57 PM	#88
Token Magikoopa Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 1,789	Took some time, tried the whole not angry thing. This is about as calm as I'm gonna get here. I am sick and tired of seeing this shit play over again and again. There is no room or reason for "peaceful discourse" with people who are making excuses for and supporting modern day lynchings. People like that legitimately don't see people like me as people, and if calm and collected responses carefully measured not to hurt their feelings actually worked, none of us (and by us I mean society as a whole, not just this forum) would be in this position. Violence and vitriol are the only languages you understand, or at least the only ones you're willing to communicate to us with! We are DYING, and you're sitting there telling us that people supporting and making justifications for our murderers are deserving of our respect instead of our anger? You pull the fucking MLK card, when all peace got him was a bullet through the fucking face, and an eternity of being used and twisted by whites into some hippie negro uncle tom? There is no possible way for both sides to exist in harmony when one side is dismissing the fact that cops are constantly more violent towards blacks than whites, the fact that they are trained to profile racial minorities, the fact that breaking even more laws in the act of covering up a murder apparently isn't a crime if the victim is black! How are we supposed to peacefully coexist with people who through their words and action continually show that they view us as subhuman? Time and time again the staff of this forum has shown that despite their claims of wanting a peaceful community, they only really care about shutting up minorities. Queer, black, trans, disabled, it doesn't fucking matter, you're not allowed to be angry at people who passively sit by and let this shit happen day after day. I don't know what sense of misguided nostalgia or whatever has kept aking me give this bigoted shithole a chance, but I'm done with it. You can all go burn your crosses on someone else's lawn, and I hope you fuckers all burn down with it.