If 95% of people believed it was true, wouldn't we see a lot less correction of it, to "all lives matter"/"blue lives matter"/"confederate lives matter"? And considerable less, "Yes, but... why focus on that, instead of this important other issue or angle?"

Right or wrong, it seems to me to still be a very contentious element for a lot of people. Just saying "black lives matter," seems feel like a genuine threat against something for many people right now, but those people feeling threatened, those other forms don't bother most of them. "Blue lives" doesn't seem to bother them. They're not responding to that with, "No, really, it's all lives."

This is an interesting case, where a legal firm put up a sign that reads, "stop killing unarmed black men now," and people have come out to insist it's evidence they hate police. There's nothing about police in there, even, explicitly. Nothing anti-police. But, the order to stop killing unarmed black men, is being perceived as a threat.

zevrem wrote:

It's because of the common fear/hatred of the archetypal thuggish black man (which spans ALL races, at least in the USA)

That's really isolating one aspect out of all context to give an incredibly false model of things. And, really, the "archetypal thuggish black man" spans all races?

zevrem wrote:

it's because it's generally better to be safe than sorry.

Within context, what do you mean by this? What would be the "safe" and what would be the "sorry"?

zevrem wrote:

But of course you already knew that.

I know that it's better to be safe then sorry? Or, Valeli does?

zevrem wrote:

No, the hatred of the archetypal thuggish black man spans all races. That link is pointing to an article about Mexican gangs specifically targeting black people. Black people aren't hated because of "white supremacy," every race on the planet hates black people, including black people themselves. White people if anything tolerate them more than other races do. If you disagree, try promoting black acceptance with the Chinese or the Russians and see how that turns out.

That doesn't follow, though. Nor, does it go any length, at all, to supporting a need for bigotry or a reason to allow it.

zevrem wrote:

And by "of course you already know that" I mean "you already know why people are nervous about BLM and its stakeholders and you're playing dumb."

So you were just calling me a liar and/or stating that you know my own thoughts and awareness more than I do. Glad we cleared that up.

Now, within context, what does your "better safe than sorry," actually mean?

Nonsense. In Poland we are all of firm belief that entire humankind is united around common urge to tie together all Russians' shoelaces. And while we're at it,

zevrem wrote:

White people if anything tolerate them more than other races do. If you disagree, try promoting black acceptance with the Chinese or the Russians and see how that turns out.

what does that imply Russians to be? Purple?

zevrem wrote:

Citation, please.

Racism in Russia

In recent survey, Moscow Protestant Chaplaincy found that over half of Africans in Moscow had been physically attacked in the past. Attacks in Moscow Metro are common, and "monkey" insults are so frequent that students have ceased reporting them.

Posters and toys depicting Barack Obama as a monkey have been sold in Russian stores in 2015, and Member of Duma Irina Rodnina has publicly posted a picture showing Obama with a banana on Twitter.

Nigerians in China

I'm not sure I follow, to be honest. You have merely pointed that racism exists, which was never disputed. That racist attitudes exist outside of the US/Western Europe does not exactly prove "hatred of the archetypal thuggish black man spans all races" and particularly "including black people themselves."
But let us grant you that such an archetype does exist. Is it your contention that based on it one is entitled to discriminate against black people?

zevrem wrote:

I was answering a post from Decrescent that seemed to express puzzlement as to why BLM is met with hostility and fear. One way was by making the case that racism towards blacks is often worse once you move outside the Occident. Even within the US, it's not white youths trying to drive black people out of poor neighborhoods through violence. And I'll give you 3 guesses as to whether whites, blacks, or Asians committed the worst black genocides of the 20th century.

I'm still wondering how you were applying "better safe, then sorry" to any of this.

Or, why you think that Russia and China are significantly applicable to an American response to an American political movement/protest.

zevrem wrote:

That was a parenthetical remark for the sake of keeping you from going on some irrelevant tangent about white supremacy or whatever. The playbook of you left-wing sympathy salespeople really isn't that big.

Regardless of whether it was a parenthetical or meant to distract me or something like a shiny object, what did you mean by it?

zevrem wrote:

As for "better safe than sorry" I'd again like to bring up the "litmus test" I brought up before. Would you be willing, at night, to walk through an economically deprived black neighborhood with boarded up windows and drug dealers on sidewalk corners? You dodged it before, but I'd like to remind you that this is a pretty "yes or no" question.

I didn't dodge it. I said I'd accept and lots of people accept your inane "challenge" every day, as it was originally framed by you. It's only scary, in its base form to you, as far as I can tell, out of anyone in the thread. It's a personal fear of yours that you keep trying to insist is universal.

Your challenge does not have much to do with BLM, either, as most of the murders by police have neither occurred at night, or while any police was alone, just having a walk, near a bunch of drug dealers, surrounded by boarded up windows or in the defense of anyone doing so. That's why there was no "I can't breathe outside a boarded up housing complex at night because of drug dealers" protest in relation to the police-aided death of a man. But, when/if that happens there is outcry for that.

You didn't like that I accepted. And, since then, you've been reduced to making statements you won't back up and insulting me. Which, again, is against the rules.

Stop insulting posters. Stop actively trying to derail conversation. This is, at least, the second time you have been warned in recent weeks.

I think we can all agree that I've been a bit emotional and this has caused me to lose sight of what's important to me. And while I, and lots of other people, find the people that BLM represents repugnant, I personally don't care what these people do as long as they stay away from me or anything I'm likely to visit or depend on. They can shoot each other or burn each other's cars all they want as long as I don't have to work with them, drive by them, or otherwise SEE them. I also don't want to have to pay for their bullshit social programs or hear endless rants about how much I have to care about their struggle for handouts acceptance. If you can accept that then I think we're good.

This COULD have worked. This COULD have been about police incompetence and trigger-happiness. But instead it's about why we need to walk on eggshells around society's worst. And when it's stated like that, it becomes clear that it could never have worked.

Last edited by zevrem (10-05-2016 06:28:17 PM)

Would American style democracy be significantly different if professional sports, and effectively-but-not-quite professional college sports, weren't a thing?

I can't help but think about that each time I see the debates (or whatever) advertised as if they're some kind of game match between sides. I think people have developed a real tendency to pick sides.... which probably (certainly) is a thing that goes far deeper than sports. But sports just bring it out so effectively. I feel like we have a lot of people voting for X/Y just because they're fans of team X/Y.... which strikes me as really problematic.

I'm not a huge fan of either of the two candidates running, but I can't fathom how one of them still has well over 40% of the national vote locked up despite.... everything. It's like people are just voting for that person because they're being fans in a "rebuilding" year. Although this accusation cuts both ways, and I think plenty of people would be tempted to vote for the other candidate "just cause" too.

The other argument, I guess, is that there's huge genuine interest in a protest vote. I don't buy it though. I do buy that people are fed up and frustrated (I am too), but comparing this to other elections.... some years ago back in France, for example (2002), the far right/nationalist LePen got to the final round with the support of a large protest vote (as well as some genuine nationalist support that seems to be growing a bit, but that's a separate lengthy post). The point is LePen got hammered in the final. He lost to Chirac by a vote of ~82% to 18%. It wasn't close. At all. The point, I'm sure, being that citizens felt they had made their voices heard by sending him to the final round of the election, and had no vested interest in his actually winning despite not representing (most of) their interests at all.

Maybe I'm rambling a bit. So back to the point, rather than my allegations and aspersions - would democracy be significantly different in anyways if the whole concept of professional sports/teams had never been a thing? Would people actually pay more attention to voting for their own interests then? Voting for your own interests, of course, creates groups of like-minded/interested people. But I think that now we have people who don't even really care about their own interests all that much when they vote, other than their emotional interest in having their team win.

Or am I just an idiot, and Trump actually does represent the interests of a large group very well beyond serving as a voice of protest? Bring back prima nocta 2016?

Last edited by Valeli (10-14-2016 09:40:11 AM)

Valeli wrote:

It's like people are just voting for that person because they're being fans in a "rebuilding" year.

My mother's wife was planning on voting for Trump last time we spoke.

Yes. You read that right.

She's been a life long republican and voted for Pam Bondi -our state's attorney general who been fighting LGBT equality laws for years. She is a pot smoking lesbian. But, she's also racist and a Christian. I truly, honestly do not understand why one set of values wins out over the other in her mind, and yet. I have no doubt that she will "hold her nose and vote her Party" because that's the set of values she's chosen to align with.

There's very much a "My party, right or wrong" attitude on both sides of the fence. And yes, it does generate the people who do straight-party voting. It's really just a different iteration of "My country, right or wrong."

I used to be a Democrat, but I've been Green Party since 2004, since they have a platform that more closely aligns with my personal belief set*. No one from my party is ever going to run in Louisiana (Maybe I need to be the first?), so I tend to vote as close to a straight-Democrat ticket as I can.**

*I need them to not be so anti-GMO, for starters.

**I've had to vote in a lot of elections where there were two or three Republicans and no Democrats or third-parties running. In those cases, I try to vote for the Republican who at least tries to sound vaguely centrist in their platform.

I'm still surprised, over here in China, how many Economics students seem gaga over Trump still. "He'll be a strong leader." "He knows how to brand."

That we'll all die in a  fiery nuclear war of shame and degradation and weird hairpieces doesn't seem to factor in. He knows how to put his face on things.

Would you say Trump's 'brand' is consistent with the view Chinese people are given of the US on the whole, though?

I feel like if a person were to be completely racist toward the US, their viewpoint distilled into a human form would basically be Trump.