Printable View
Without denying that that institutional racism exists, they do kinda cheat in their social experiment, the white guy is wearing it on his back, the black guy has it hanging next to his hip. The results will probably be the same vica versa but at least play fair.
And now we have husar, what an Improvement.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
The south have done nothing close to deserving such a crackdown and to institute such a white wash of their history over the actions of a few is a pointless injustice and the same breed of cultural suppression that was perpritrated against natives and slaves in the colonial age.
This is one of the most delusional things I have ever read on this site. :no:Quote:
The south have done nothing close to deserving such a crackdown and to institute such a white wash of their history over the actions of a few is an injustice of such a scale as to be a complete betrayal of the every good thing to come out of your revolution.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I apologize for being this way. How can I make up for it?
Oh its one of those threads, where people are refreshing faster than i can edit out mistakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
And dont BS me, you have read far far worse.
Wow, dude, you made it even worse.
How illuminating, surely that was the epitome of explanation.
If that would be the single difference between "What'cha doing" and "CODE RED", you're sort of missing a few steps. It's not like it'll take a major time difference to become threatening between the two positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
BBCQuote:
The flag wasn't a major symbol until the Civil Rights movement began to take shape in the 1950s, says Bill Ferris, founding director of the Center for the Study of Southern Culture at the University of Mississippi, It was a battle flag relegated to history but the Ku Klux Klan and others who resisted desegregation turned to the flag as a symbol.
Using it as a rebel flag without acknowledging its racist connections is a white wash.
1. The white wash I was reffering to was the renaming of the streets. What flag the capitol flies is irrelevant.
2. Racist connotation? You really think most southerners are using the flag with the KKK in mind?
I'm not going to see St George's Cross as a racist symbol because a couple of EDL assholes used it. The french dont consider the tricolour as a racist symbol because the National Front uses it.
Why should the south pay such heed to the KKK's usage?
But it could become one, you see? Are you one of those people who says that no one should have a problem with openly-displayed swastikas because it 'meant something else' in Asia? The fact is that the swastika has become strongly associated with the Nazi regime and its values, just as the cross became a symbol of Christianity, and so on with every geometrical or pictorial symbol ever used by humans. This is quite literally how symbols work.Quote:
I'm not going to see St George's Cross as a racist symbol because a couple of EDL assholes used it.
Well, that's exactly what they did, according to Ironside's source...Now, you could claim that the symbol was re-oriented toward some different evaluation or connotation, but this is largely untrue or irrelevant, because where it is not directly linked to white supremacy it is directly linked to an identity predicated upon opposition to the Union and to the federal government, which even in itself should be quite an issue.Quote:
Why should the south pay such heed to the KKK's usage?
Er, no, it's extremely relevant, and if you're some kind of super-libertarian devolutionist type like ICSD then it's exactly what you want to see. On the other hand, for unionists it's quite repugnant.Quote:
What flag the capitol flies is irrelevant.
What they "have in mind" isn't even ultimately the point. The point isn't even that its usage contributes to a culture of Southern exceptionalism that can easily recreate or reinforce perceptions of the Otherness of non-Southerners and non-whites in general.Quote:
You really think most southerners are using the flag with the KKK in mind?
The flag is really small-fry. However, as part of a larger program of social reconstruction, it obviously has to be re-evaluated (i.e. devalued) by Southerners, even leaving aside the goal of reducing racial animosity. What it represents to those who flaunt it is automatically problematic without even bringing racial history into it.
During WWII the collaborative Russian liberation army used tricolor and St. Andrew's flags which are now adopted as the National flag of Russia and Russian Navy respectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Attachment 15646 Attachment 15647 Attachment 15648
Does it mean that modern Russia glorifies nazi collaborators?
I am one of those people who say that asians shouldnt have to change thier symbols just because someone warped the swastika's meaning in the eyes of the public. Same with the Rebel standard, to quote office space "Why should I change? He's the one who sucks."Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
BBC's magazine is such a great source and speaks for everyone, just ask the "canada's ugly secret" thread.Quote:
Well, that's exactly what they did, according to Ironside's source...Now, you could claim that the symbol was re-oriented toward some different evaluation or connotation, but this is largely untrue or irrelevant, because where it is not directly linked to white supremacy it is directly linked to an identity predicated upon opposition to the Union and to the federal government, which even in itself should be quite an issue.
I find most interpritation and connotation claims to be worthless in general; mixes of confirmation bias and agenda pushing. What matters is the intent of the ones flying that flag. That intent will be different between every flag waver and I doubt anyone here can be trusted to identify any universally applicable intent without lying or toeing a party line.
It is irrelevant to this argument because if the united states capitol takes down a flag they put up it isnt imposing thier will on anyone but themselves. The issue I have is ACIN's desire to impose that will on the entirety of the the south, specifically to make them comply with his political views. If nothing else but because none of his proposed edicts will have his stated effect.Quote:
Er, no, it's extremely relevant, and if you're some kind of super-libertarian devolutionist type like ICSD then it's exactly what you want to see. On the other hand, for unionists it's quite repugnant.
Again, no - terrible analogy. It should be obvious that modern Southerners are more continuous with 19th century Southerns than Nazis are with centuried Asian symbols. A far better analogy would be that we in the West frown upon people marching around with a red armband with swastika, and would frown upon it a hell of a lot more if those people claimed that this sort of symbolism was part of their cultural identity, but no it doesn't have anything to do with Nazi ideology why are we goose-stepping no reason just exercising...Quote:
I am one of those people who say that asians shouldnt have to change thier symbols just because someone warped the swastika's meaning in the eyes of the public. Same with the Rebel standard, to quote office space "Why should I change? He's the one who sucks."
Quote:
BBC's magazine is such a great source and speaks for everyone, just ask the "canada's ugly secret" thread.
You're really reaching here, aren't you?Quote:
says Bill Ferris, founding director of the Center for the Study of Southern Culture at the University of Mississippi
Congratulations, you are now even more libertarian than ICSD. So why were you critical of the Scottish independence movement again?Quote:
It is irrelevant to this argument because if the united states capitol takes down a flag they put up it isnt imposing thier will on anyone but themselves.
Right now, any government building in the United States that flies a Confederate flag is giving an official endorsement of a separatist regime and separatist ideology more generally. That this would trouble anti-secessionists (who are also a majority in the South anyway, by the by) should neither surprise you nor invite your indignation.Quote:
The issue I have is ACIN's desire to impose that will on the entirety of the the south, specifically to make them comply with his political views.
What? Completely-backwards paragraph. The North and the South share an interpretation, it's just that many in the South value it positively while elsewhere it is usually valued negatively.Quote:
Also, repugnant? It's just a flag, coloured cloth, the north's interpritation of it's meaning may be repugnant (to them) but frankly I find most outside interpritations in general to be worthless; mixes of confirmation bias and agenda pushing. What matters is the intent of the ones flying that flag and I doubt anyone here can be trusted to tell us without toeing a party line.
Except for alot of them it is part of thier cultural identity, Thier ancestors marched under it, it's been included in ther history books since the war ended and it's been used in reenactments without shame since 1913.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
No I'm dismissing with a pithy comment, I couldnt care less about this man's opinion of what meaing the denizens of the south takes from the flag, especially when his comment is proceeded by:Quote:
You're really reaching here, aren't you?
It means different things to different people, the article showed that at least there were differences between these two men.Quote:
He likens it to the swastika but others see it very differently. Indeed, the flag has been compared to a Rorschach blot because it means several things at all at once, depending on who is looking at it.
"All symbols are liable to multiple interpretations but this is unique in its power and ability to inflame passions on all sides, and the volume of interpretations and preconceptions about it make it unique in American history," says John Coski, author of The Confederate Battle Flag: America's Most Embattled Emblem. He has even seen it displayed in Europe, where it has become shorthand for "rebel".
Quote:
Congratulations, you are now even more libertarian than ICSD. So why were you critical of the Scottish independence movement again?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Never said it surprised me and the invitation was putting it on a public forum.Quote:
Right now, any government building in the United States that flies a Confederate flag is giving an official endorsement of a separatist regime and separatist ideology more generally. That this would trouble anti-secessionists (who are also a majority in the South anyway, by the by) should neither surprise you nor invite your indignation.
I stand by my statment that ACIN's an idiot if he thinks outright cultural suppression will in any way make things better, and he's a worse idiot if he thinks it is even warranted.
Call me when they stop paying taxes and start shooting feds.
...How can they have the same interpritation if they differ in interpriting it's value?Quote:
What? Completely-backwards paragraph. The North and the South share an interpretation, it's just that many in the South value it positively while elsewhere it is usually valued negatively.
Read strikes post again, the north and south dont share an interpritation on why teh war started let alone the meaning behind the war's flags.
I certainly don’t support the killer’s disgusting act, but I do understand it. The statistics shown in the infographic posted earlier in this thread are collected and published by our own government, and yet they never seem to make it into the ever present national discussion on race. In a rational, logic-based society, police would be encouraged to use data and statistics to target those groups most prone to criminal activity. In America, that’s called police brutality. In a rational, logic-based society, policing strategies based on such statistics that have proven successful would be standardized and duplicated throughout the country. In America, politicians are dismantling them. In a rational, logic-based society, it would be assumed that a group disproportionately prone to criminal activity would also be disproportionately represented in the prison system. In America, that’s institutional racism. In a rational, logic-based society the existence of a group that consists of 13% of the population yet commits 52% of the nation’s homicides would result in more policing of said group. In America, the problem of ‘over policing’ of the black community is common knowledge. In a rational, logic-based society, the fact that whites are 25 times more likely to be victims of black violence than the reverse, yielding 300,000+ victims annually, would result in significant public outcry. And yet in America, the #blacklivesmatter movement has swept the nation. It’s like we live in some Orwellian nightmare where everyone is aware of the reality surrounding them but no one is willing to acknowledge it for fear of reprisal from the thought police.
Having lived in a black majority city that was built by whites and once prospered under their leadership, I can understand the frustration and hopelessness of standing by while once proud institutions crumble, a once strong economy falters, and once beautiful and safe neighborhoods transform into drug and crime infested hellholes, without being able to utter a word because racism. The attack is a tragedy. However, it is just a symptom of the distorted way in which Americans have been conditioned to think about race.
Ignoring even the fact that the infographic is quite simply false and a gross example of statistical malpractice, you speak of logic and reason, yet I see you are careful to tiptoe around both the etiology of the problem and the indications for treating it.
Go back to SBPDL, please.
That was the biggest load of hogwash I have seen in a long time and writing "rational logical-based society" four times doesn't make what you said either rational nor logical-based, considering the lack of awareness for basic socio economic factors are being thrown out the window.
Considering crime-rate is higher for people in poor situations, and that 'black' people are disportionately poorer than 'white' people, a rational logic-based society would be aware of this, and act in the interest of reducing crime by improving living standards and giving opportunity to those who need it most. As such, people who use logic and think rationally would come to the conclusion that scapegoating over race is silly and pro-actively encouraging segregation and victimising of a populace based on amount of melanin in their skin cells would not decrease crime-rate but by inverse, increase it, exasperating the issue, leading to a stronger self-fulfilling cycle.
A rational logic-based society would actually conclude "treat others how you would like to be treated yourself" and actually start to promote a society based on these tenets, and improve the situation for everyone. As such, a rational and logical-based society wouldn't victimise people into a detrimental underclass, unless they are actually some kind of sadist and enjoy the thought of being trampled over by society, which in their case, they should volunteer to be in that position without putting others in it.
You're proving my point. You've been conditioned to think of any and all racial disparities as purely a function of socioeconomic condition without bothering to apply, pardon my repetition, a rational, logic-based approach to verifying your assumption. While controlling for socioeconomic factors can bring other ethnic groups to parity with whites, statistical analysis simply does not prove that out for blacks. I'm sorry. :shrug:
Such intellectual insularity and close-mindedness towards other points of view isn't healthy, and is actually the same kind thinking that caused this tragedy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty
Not quite. Leaving aside the vociferous asseverations and ideological commitments of both broad "sides", the facts are as follows:Quote:
You're proving my point. You've been conditioned to think of any and all racial disparities as purely a function of socioeconomic condition without bothering to apply, pardon my repetition, a rational, logic-based approach to verifying your assumption.
1. Since the end of the Reconstruction era, Blacks whether staying in the South or migrating to the North or West have been systematically exploited for their labor while being officially or quasi-officially segregated into under-invested slums. Both segregation and under-investment together created inherently weak and unstable communities.
2. Today, many large Black (especially urban) communities fare poorly on socioeconomic indicators, and overall crime rates are unacceptably higher than for most other possible groupings of comparable order-of-magnitude in population size.
3. Non-Blacks tend to look down on or ware Blacks, meaning that a widespread cultural bias (manifesting primarily with respect to the heuristics of skin color/facial morphology and voice quality/speech accent) leads to additional disadvantages for Blacks in their relationships with, for example, private employers and the judiciary at-large.
What we should take away from the three points above is that American political and civic institutions essentially 'ruined' the Black-American population through short-sighted policies based upon fear and contempt. The urban pathologies of the 1970s and 1980s did not spontaneously emerge from any post-war (i.e. WW2) federal policy or from the civil rights movement; they had been burgeoning from the end of the Civil War, and were only ever contained by severe repression and the coercive capacity of the non-Black population. The real problem today in concentrated Black communities underlying poor performance and outcomes, leaving aside whatever one may say of the acute effects of continuing under-investment or hasty discrimination, is that Black communities formed in the wake of emancipation and migration were by design so weak that very little sense of communalism developed, and inasmuch as it did it tended to be tamped by the political and economic disfavors done over the years. So now, then, many Blacks tend to be radically-individualistic. The Conservative/Libertarian ascendancy since the 1970s has only reinforced these tendencies.
Now we are getting to the crux. The most fundamental disease affecting underperforming Black communities is quite simply the very same disease that is constantly and publicly tearing at the very fabric of American civil society. It surprises me that even though some rightist commentators like to point out the relative social conservatism of "Black America", they have not hit upon this point, namely that there is really very little separating a Black "gangbanger living the thug life" and the usual suspects constituting the Tea Party. All the major ideological narratives offered in the reported discourse on race in America today are therefore wrong.
The etiology is quite clear, and many of its corollaries persist even today. No 'contained' reform, reparation, or rehabilitation targeting either some designated "powerful" or "privileged" group, or some "deficient" or "disenfranchised" group, can possibly produce any meaningful social change or useful outcomes. The "problems" affecting Black America are utterly inextricable from those affecting America as a whole, so splitting hairs about differences in specific "values" or whatever will not prove persuasive.
Only a wholesale reconstitution and reorganization of the political, economic, and administrative structure of the United States could possibly bring Blacks (or for that matter Aboriginals or Latinos, but by their own idiosyncratic histories that I will defer on) 'up to par', so to speak.
There's no real reason to believe that such a thing would occur in the medium-term however, so right now all we actually have is sanctimonious bloviation between serried ranks of fools, charlatans, and malingerers.
I don't really even give a crap about political or social issues anymore: you're all a bunch of BSers BSing BSers. All I have now is my (thankfully) impotent pedantry...
Didn't catch this edit. Kind of like Hitler saying that "Jewish science" is too plagued by "intellectual insularity and close-mindedness towards other points of view" to contribute anything to Der große Deutsch Physik....Quote:
Such intellectual insularity and close-mindedness towards other points of view isn't healthy, and is actually the same kind thinking that caused this tragedy.
You make a fine casuist, sir.
To me it would absolutily look different, if you do a social experiment you must eliminate everything that could alter the results. This looks like they were out for an outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Do you trust the police?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Would you trust a police using you as a piggy bank by giving you random fines?
Would you trust a police that randomly arrest you to fill a quota?
Would you trust a police were an arrest commonly ends up with a hospital visit or even death?
Would you trust a police who arrest you on bogus charges and then later admits to lying in civil court and ends up with no consequences at all?
Would you trust a police that made SWATing an actual thing in internet harassment?
Would you trust a justice system that keeps you imprisoned for years without conviction on a crime that amounts to shoplifting?
Would you trust a justice system where you get out quicker by confessing and sitting off the time than await the case to even come to trial?
A rational, logic-based society knows that people trusting to police makes wonders for reducing the crime ratio and generally improve the situation in the area. There's strategies that does just that, which includes a heavy police presence in the area, but since the police is friendly, the population now trust the police.
Most of the US police does not employ these methods, as they're expensive in manpower. And doesn't involve idea's such a black youths are thugs that deserves what are coming for them, when they are shot to death.
A rational logic-based society calls that utter stupidity.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Hi, I'm from 20% minority Blue and have a rage issue. If I attack a random guy on the street, I'll attack the 80% majority Green 80 times out of 100.
Hi, I'm from 80% majority Green and have a rage issue. If I attack a random guy on the street, I'll attack the 20% minority Green 20 times out of 100.
Blue does 20 random assults a year. 16 will hit Green, 4 Blue.
Green does 80 random assults a year. 64 will hit Green, 16 Blue. So with the same crime ratio, Blue vs Green is the same number as Green vs Blue, despite Blue being a minority. This will always happen, no matter the size of the minority.
Now, because Blue are a minority, we have to multiply that 16 with 4 to get the "true number". Suddenly Blue commits 4x times as many Blue vs Green compared to Green vs Blue, due to a statistical lie.
In the case of blacks, they do have more assults in general so their number will be higher. For the murder ratio, you have the total number making it possible to see if there's any targeting effects or a side effect of a higher base number. The targeting effect is negative (as in black vs white murders are rarer than random) in that case.
My flaw from yesterday was mentally running with 100 assults for both groups and missing that is defaults to a higher baseline for the minority.
Looks like Monty agrees with me. Radical Reconstruction it is.
Or radical denial because what you want doesn't resonate all that well with what is. I haven't checked the numbers but the outcome seems to be a given to you whatever the variables.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I have no words. And neither it seems, do you.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
FYI the Nazi Swatizka looks as much like the Buddhist one as a cross (t) looks like an x
As for the confederate flag. Apart from reenactment and dramas I would have put its usage in the same category or worse than burning the flag of the USA. The confederates lost in rebellion to the USA. So showing any official allegiance to it should be treated like showing allegiance to an enemy of the state like Al Qaeda.
A cross is an x rotated by 90 degrees. A Nazi swatizka is a Buddhist swatizka rotated by 90 degrees.
Subtle difference which is more obvious when you use it daily like a t and an x.
=][=
Anyhow might as well destroy all Christian churches as they have a cross and the Nazis had iron crosses...
A cross (as in a crucifix or a t) has one arm elongated, a bit more than a 45 (not 90) degree turn.
Do you mean perhaps the plus sign on a calculator?
Meh, I dont consider flag burning hienous (waste of a good flag, imo) and I certainly dont think either should be illegal.Quote:
As for the confederate flag. Apart from reenactment and dramas I would have put its usage in the same category or worse than burning the flag of the USA. The confederates lost in rebellion to the USA. So showing any official allegiance to it should be treated like showing allegiance to an enemy of the state like Al Qaeda.
There's nothing wrong with Swastikas, and they're everywhere in Europe, on Greek temples, in Churches, on a mass of public buildings from the late 18th Century up to the 1930's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The question of St. George's Cross is a pregnant one because during the 1990's it was seen as a somewhat crass and possibly racist, or isolationist, symbol. In the last 15 years there has been a reaction against that and the Cross is now regularly displayed on houses, Pubs, Town Halls etc.
The Nazi Swastika is only seen as a Nazi symbol because everyone else stopped using it at the outset of WWII to avoid confusion, hence its removal from the US 45th Infantry Division.
Personally, I think we should put Swastikas on everything, and we should especially encourage the JEwish Community to integrate the design into the floors etc of Synagogues - it historically appears in some texts and art associated with Judaism.
If we did that it would cease to be an effective Neo-Nazi standard.
Moving on...
You are advocating the destruction of Southern Culture, symbolism, traditions... etc. because of a perceived ingrained racism. Such a destruction would necessarily have to be complete, it would require a program similar to the residential schools one discussed in our other thread. It would not just be a question of flags, but of social conventions, cultural institutions, traditions, history and even dialect.
It would be necessary to utterly suppress both white and black culture in the region for a couple of centuries to final wipe it out, if you are saying that Southern culture is inherently racist.
Such projects have been tried with varying levels of success in the Old World, English suppression of Welsh, Cornish, Irish and Scots; French suppression of the Bretons and Occitans; Spanish suppression of Basques and Catalans; Swedish suppression of the Sami.
In Spain and the UK this resulted in multiple flare-ups of rebellion and more recently terrorism, in France it has been more successful (I recall something about Brenus being Occitan but looking down upon them) but still causes tension, the Sami are not a particularly happy people these days but I know less about that to be fair.
DeNazification worked because it only had to scrape off a Nazi veneer which had persisted for around a decade and a half, even then if didn't excise Germany of its sense of superiority or its natural prejudices, it just redirected them - both reappeared with the Eurozone crisis. No, what DeNazification did was make everyone ashamed of what they and/or their parents had done. The strategy was effective in neutering the movement but it wasn't really healthy for Germany and they're only no getting over it.
So, Nazi's were around for at most two decades and the shock delivered to expunge them has taken 70 years and counting to get over. The South has a history stretching back about four centuries, how long do you think it would take to wipe the culture clean and rebuild it?