Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 181 to 184 of 184

Thread: Former British Colony in Downward Spiral of Ethnic Violence, State Security Impunity

  1. #181

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrandir View Post
    1. All women in the video (I suspect you are biased against the blondes) are not Russian. They are Ukrainian. Speaking Russian. And they are not random vloggers. It is a TV travel show with ten years of history behind it. Called Орел и Решка. Google it.
    I am familiar with the concept of reality TV, which only speaks to my point. But I take your correction.

    Blonde is the canonical apex of the white woman hierarchy, at least in the West.

    2. You summary of the video: it was a staged one
    Correct. Postmodern reification of what is "truer than true" (c.f. Catch-22, All the Things They Carried) can have its place, but when your message is 'Africa is eo ipso dangerous and it is not racist to interject so', embedding a video containing multiple classically racist tropes as an authentic article of an African mugging a European woman as supporting material is counterproductive. It would be bad enough to condemn a continent and a race on the basis of a single crime, but that it was a TV scene makes it worse.

    This is why I scoff at people who assume everyone always marks a sharp divide between fiction and realty. Representation matters, and scenes like this one and the clip from National Lampoon's Vacation I embedded earlier are enduringly absorbed as reality by many viewers.



    By the way, here is a very real video of aggressive police unjustly harassing a group of young men of color.



    A short rundown of your stance: there are a lot of dangerous places in the world (including Kyiv and Ukraine - I agree, why not?), but you can't mention some of them (Africa and Harlem) not to sound racist.
    I disagree that Harlem is dangerous. But being a purely subjective label, it could be that you have applied some legitimate definition of danger to include Harlem. So what is the context in which you brought it up? You were dismissing the poet Chukovsky's eremiad on Africa as being innocuous and non-racist in its stereotypical concern with the people and animals of that place, in the expectation that it would also be uncontroversial and non-racist to enumerate Harlem as a dangerous place. (The logic of the juxtaposition was never clear in the first place.)

    I tried to get at why you would mention Harlem in the first place, and why you thought it should go without elaboration that Harlem is dangerous. Of questionable relevance to the discussion of the poem thought it may still have been, why was your first instinct to invoke Harlem, rather than Mt. Everest or a football riot? Why was your sole articulable criterion for danger the existence of crime, which I have not known to be a sufficient condition even in casual conversation? In the end the common overriding element of danger was that both places are famously populated by black people. In a thread about racism, where you've relentlessly discouraged the framing of racism as a sop to undeserving agitators.

    Can you see it from the perspective of someone who minimally accepts the existence of anti-black racism, why they might scrutinize someone who works from the premise that blacks are overly-entitled, dangerous, coddled, attention hogs in a thread about, among other things, systematic police violence against black persons?

    Because many people tend to play them down not to sound racist.
    Choosing to emphasize them suggests one thinks they are a relatively-important issue, which demands justification.

    You intentionally try to put into my mouth words that I never said or forget what I did say. I more than once repeated my stance on ANY boots on ANY necks. But you choose to see what fits with your
    Your words don't match up to the stated ideal. For example:

    It is true, his race wasn't the reason for acquittal. Yet race factored greatly into the verdict, which it shouldn't. [These two sentences may contradict each other] That is why we should be concerned about the racial implications of OJ's acquittal. You seem to be concerned about the racial implications of all other events - from children's doggerels to cannibalism. Not about OJ, somehow.
    It is up to you whether you want to view a unanimous jury decision acquitting a black man as greatly racially-motivated, but one could take that for given arguendo. You would still be leaving unexplained what the racial implications of the acquittal are, how they manifest anywhere in American society, and why you ultimately perform insistent concern over the possibility that a black person somewhere might get an undeserved break while giving not an ounce's worth of regard to the millions who suffer documented material and moral oppression. Isn't that - starkly differential consideration?

    It is a matter of disgrace if a single gulity person should be acquitted. Race doesn't matter. For you it seems it does - because there are four centuries of slavery behind them. So you try to weigh up hundreds against smaller numbers. The counting doesn't matter. The guilt does.
    Would you prefer X number of patriotic Ukrainians become disappeared in the hunt for a Russian spy? You have the spirit of a true Stalinist if so, I guess. Our much-vaunted Enlightenment ideals have led us in a different direction, distinct from any racial politics.
    https://www.cato.org/policing-in-ame...ckstones-ratio

    The American system, grounded in the British Common Law, has long erred on the side of protecting innocence. Thus we presume an accused person's innocence until they are proven guilty. As the preeminent English jurist William Blackstone wrote,"[B]etter that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer."74 This principle can also be found in religious texts and in the writings of the American Founders.75 Benjamin Franklin went further arguing "it is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer."76
    [...]
    The survey posed dilemma to the American people, asking respondents which of the following scenarios they believe would be worse:

    Having 20,000 people in prison who are actually innocent; or,
    Having 20,000 people not in prison who are actually guilty
    The survey found that a majority (60%) of Americans say it would be worse to have 20,000 innocent people in prison, while 40% say it would be worse to have 20,000 people who are actually guilty but not in prison.
    https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=23648
    As noted before, nearly all of these individuals were arrested for having fit the profile of a potential enemy, not for things they had actually done. Stalin proceeded from the belief that innocent people would inevitably be repressed in the process of destroying enemies and that it was better to arrest innocents than to let the guilty go free. As he stated during the Great Terror, “'every communist is a possible hidden enemy. And because it is not easy to recognize the enemy, the goal is achieved even if only 5 percent of those killed are truly enemies'” (p. 196).
    That's doublethink at its best: you can't remind blacks about their skin color which you can very well do with whites.
    The invocation of doublethink is poetic set against the Stalin excerpt.

    Of course that's not remotely what I said. You can remind anyone of their skin color as such. What you may not do is pretend that being reminded of your skin color (and associated privilege relative to others) is a form of oppression against whites.

    I see. My arguments are always either red herring or working too hard. Except that they aren't arguments but facts.

    Your arguments are a paragon of objectivity and are never far-fetched. Rock on.
    When you are so dismissive, while declining either to defend or substantiate your statements nor rebut my own, you only demonstrate your unseriousness and vindicate all my complaints about your posture.

    Just below is an example of a red herring, pointing to the existence of cannibalism in some parts of the Pacific as though it could be a defense of persistent reference to Hawaiians as cannibals in spite of repeated notice that they were not.

    Isn't the bold a?

    A translation of this stement of yours:
    Being on a moral high ground (as you think) gives you unmitigated temerity to be right even before the debate starts. Something like "Don't you dare to question the correctness of my opinion".
    No, I have largely remained planted in the realm of fact while probing your insoluble personal sentiment. See above. My moral status does not enter into the conversation.

    It's exasperating that I take the trouble to carefully and repeatedly explain to you the deficiencies in your stances and you think you can just "Nuh-UH" your way clear.

    The importance and relevance are gauged agaisnt the result. The latter boils down to my realizing after tons of words even more that being emotionally invested you tend to see one side of the story only, get angry at people who try to dispute your attitude, and simplify the versatility of motifs by reducing them to racism. Is this what you have been trying to prove? Hardly.
    To the contrary, you might be too emotionally invested in your innocence and unassailable rectitude. Even by now you've hardly deigned to engage with a thing I've said. I'd hoped at the least we'd found shared understanding of "Black Lives Matter," but even there you retracted. Yet you act as though you have standing to demand

    This is not the first attempt to try to sound teacher-like to me. Do differently
    Полное издевательство

    You wouldn't tolerate this from either a student or a peer in your own life. Please have the courtesy of addressing the substance of what I post if you're going to comment on it. Paraphrasing it back to me in an ingenuous and accurate way would be a start.

    Some things that racism is, for reference. Racism is the belief that one's prejudicial attitudes are based in observable fact, when they actually reflect taste-based aversion. Racism is reinforcing systematic benefit of the doubt for one race against another. Racism is condoning ethnic hierarchies. Racism is the anxiety that it is worse in principle to be associated with the word "racism" than to uphold racism.
    Last edited by Montmorency; Yesterday at 00:37.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  2. #182

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    Videos for thread.



    The Debate Over Cecil John Rhodes | The Misadventures of Romesh Ranganathan


    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Of course you can. Generally speaking, it seems that most of the time when inter-ethnic relations are discussed in a US-aware context, meta perspectives are thrown out of the window.
    In an absolute sense it's possible. One could encounter a group of nonwhites who are motivated by a sense of revenge; you're just walking down the street when you hear "You must die, damn cracker! White demon!" and get beaten to death in a hate crime. An Islamic terrorist organization could decide that a majority-white space is by proxy Christian or anti-Islamic and therefore target it. But these sorts of scenarios are marginal or have a very restricted application. If you'd like a more precise formulation, being non-white is overwhelmingly more likely to be a disadvantage than being white is. Whiteness, as a reminder, is the nail of the whole modern, global system of racial categorization. This is the case even in those societies where whiteness (as race, distinct from color) is not a concept with much internal application. Indeed, the term Person of Color is logically equivalent to "non-white." That's the context we're operating in.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  3. #183
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    3,899

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    I am familiar with the concept of reality TV, which only speaks to my point. But I take your correction.

    Blonde is the canonical apex of the white woman hierarchy, at least in the West.
    Correct.
    You may think whatever you like and consider the episode as staged. I don't. The show has a long history and repute, so I don't agree with your take on the issue. Again a matter of subjective attitude.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    I disagree that Harlem is dangerous.
    It is your right to disagree with stark figures which refute your claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    I tried to get at why you would mention Harlem in the first place, and why you thought it should go without elaboration that Harlem is dangerous.
    At first I went by a stereotype, you are right. But then I found official statistics and realized that at least this stereotype isn't totally incorrect - Harlem (as well as Manhattan, as it turned out) is dangerous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post

    Choosing to emphasize them suggests one thinks they are a relatively-important issue, which demands justification.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...w-force-armed/



    I remember when people here were discussing Maidan and they dwelt a lot upon the makeshift weapons protesters used and nazi symbols some of them wore. Here is a whole bunch of uniformed people with automatic guns marching along the streets and wanting to create Texas only for blacks. Was anyone here indignant, outraged or appalled? I might be mistaken, but this rally never deserved an acrimonious word from forumers here. Instead I saw angry and critical comments as to a couple brandishing pistols on their front porch. How come? Not because violence, looting and threats on the part of protesters are to be hushed not to sound racist and not to besmear a noble cause?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    you ultimately perform insistent concern over the possibility that a black person somewhere might get an undeserved break while giving not an ounce's worth of regard to the millions who suffer documented material and moral oppression.
    I more than once expressed my condemnation of oppression but I equally believe that past sufferings don't give any people indulgence for any misconduct now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Would you prefer X number of patriotic Ukrainians become disappeared in the hunt for a Russian spy? You have the spirit of a true Stalinist if so, I guess.
    Let's imagine that it is not red herring. What do you mean by "become disappeared"? Killed in action, missing in action? What do you mean by "patriotic Ukrainians"? Secret service agents, policemen, military men or average people? Unless you clarify I can't answer your non-red herring.


    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    When you are so dismissive, while declining either to defend or substantiate your statements nor rebut my own, you only demonstrate your unseriousness and vindicate all my complaints about your posture.
    My rebuttals and substatiations are qualified as red herring or misinterpretations by you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Just below is an example of a red herring, pointing to the existence of cannibalism in some parts of the Pacific as though it could be a defense of persistent reference to Hawaiians as cannibals in spite of repeated notice that they were not.
    O-ho! Now that's a different story. In your post #178 in response to my words that

    Were natives of the Pacific cannibals?
    They were, but putting it this way is racist.


    you said

    They generally weren't

    Now you speak of EXISTENCE OF CANNIBALISM.

    So much for me being dismissive and red-herringal and you being consistent and undoublethikable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    To the contrary, you might be too emotionally invested in your innocence and unassailable rectitude.
    I follow your suit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Even by now you've hardly deigned to engage with a thing I've said.
    You again ascribe to me feelings that I don't have. I didn't deign or not deign. I just see no reason to repeat the same arguments to a person who doesn't consider them worthy or relevant and fails (as I believe) to refute them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    I'd hoped at the least we'd found shared understanding of "Black Lives Matter," but even there you retracted.

    I didn't. I just made a reservation that all lives matter, which you didn't appreciate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Racism is condoning ethnic hierarchies.
    If race isn't implicated it can't be racism. Xenophobia, nazism, but not racism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

  4. #184
    Hǫr­ar Member Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hordaland, Norway
    Posts
    6,406

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    One could encounter a group of nonwhites who are motivated by a sense of revenge
    Of course ethnic violence that targets innocents is going to have a "justification".

    Meanwhile, in Sweden (from the Swedish state broadcaster; copying the output from Google Translate with a few fixes):

    When 18-year-old "Liam" was on his way home from work, he was assaulted by two 16-year-old boys who abused and humiliated him.
    - First I get beaten, then one of the guys chooses to urinate on me while he is filming this, he says.

    The young men who abused and robbed "Liam" have been prosecuted and brought to justice. The verdict is expected soon. And for "Liam", the trial has been important:
    https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/l...inerade-pa-mig

    Two 16-year-old boys robbed, abused and humiliated Liam, 18. Everything was shown in a video that was spread on social media. SVT Nyheter has met the parents of one of the suspects.

    [...]

    The parents came to Sweden six years ago. Both work part time, the father studies SFI and the mother studies to be a nurse. And the economy is good according to the parents. The son gets what he needs.

    - My son gets branded mobile phones and branded clothes so that he does not have to look at other people's things. He has a monthly allowance and when he needs more money I or his mother send him money. Nothing is missing for him, says the father.

    [...]

    This young person says that he was called, among other things, a svenne when he was attacked by your son, why do you think he is attacking a person with a Swedish background?

    - Sweden has done so much good for us, never anything bad. My son should never have said such wrong things, we are so happy with this country. We are indebted to the people here and should not speak ill of them. No one should have to experience such words and actions, neither Swedes nor others.
    https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/m...ade-liam-skams

    There are good reasons to believe that assaults with similar ethnic profiles, relative to the total number of assaults, are common. But ethnicity is often left out completely in reporting in mainstream sources, making verification hard.



    There is one important aspect that you are not mentioning above, and that is the numbers. Typically, if there is an ethnic group that forms a majority, it's the group holds most of the power. In the US, people of African ancestry form a minority; so they are naturally vulnerable.

    Other aspects include wealth and power at a national level. The last couple of centuries, countries dominated by Europeans have been among the wealthiest and most powerful. They have also simultaneously been big exporters of culture, which exposes the wealth and power of these countries to other countries, raising the prestige of the 'European' countries in the eyes of others.

    The prestige of countries and their inhabitants is in constant flux. The perceived prestige of being of European ancestry cannot be expected to last; it is a ship that could right itself - or heel differently - as more non-European countries gain wealth and power.

    Meanwhile, in terms of numbers, what is ahead?

    Falling fertility rates mean nearly every country could have shrinking populations by the end of the century.

    And 23 nations - including Spain and Japan - are expected to see their populations halve by 2100.

    [...]

    The population of sub-Saharan Africa is expected to treble in size to more than three billion people by 2100.

    And the study says Nigeria will become the world's second biggest country, with a population of 791 million.
    Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born

    For African-Americans, implicitly the subject of this thread, this might not matter much because of the Atlantic ocean.

    For ethnic Europeans living in Europe, it could mean everything - because numbers matter, and a future of rainbows and harmony cannot be taken for granted.
    Last edited by Viking; Yesterday at 14:58.
    Runes for good luck:

    [1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO