Would it matter IF ...

[Perraine]

@Shadowheqrt328:

So you espouse the "if you don't 'X', then you ain't black" argument? Interesting. I believe in debate circles they call that a "no true Scotsman" argument.

 

Can you provide examples of this "systematic" racism you speak of? Certainly I can find no law or statutes that specifically discriminate against black people, quite the opposite in fact. Unless you're referring the the many "affirmative action" statutes of which some, funnily enough, discriminate against other races in favour of blacks.

 

I'm afraid you can't claim that BLM is "politically agnostic" when one of their express aims is to tear down the current political system. Of course I'm assuming that BLM has an alternative political system in mind to replace it with? Otherwise they really are just a terrorist and/or anarchist organisation.

 

How do you come to the conclusion that America's first amendment is "explicitly geared towards the government, not the citizens" when it quite categorically negates the governments ability to stop citizens from free expression of their thoughts and even the freedom to challenge the government itself? Perhaps you should read it again?

 

I think you need to read a little further into the "Civil Rights" movement. It is far older, and far more complex than you suggest. It was also in no way brought about solely through riots or violence. The idea behind the Civil Rights movement had been raised many times before, and was repeatedly blocked, usually as it turns out, by democrats. Certainly the death of MLK proved to be a catalyst, the "straw that broke the camels back", if you like, but the arguments, speeches and peaceful protests did far more to convince the government that it was time to change than any violence did.

 

BLM have proven themselves to be quite racist and intolerant, and there hundreds of posts and news articles all over the internet from members of BLM to prove that. I will NOT link to them here, as I think they are disgusting and hateful, but a quick and simple search of Google and/or Youtube will show you many examples.

 

I'm sorry but you don't get to claim that the whole judicial system or the entirety of police departments are discriminatory, but then turn around and say BLM can't be held responsible for what a few members say or do. Either "guilty by association" is applied to all, or it's applied to none.

 

Unless you subscribe to the "rules for thee, but not for me" mentality, in which case you are being disingenuous and dishonest, and your arguments have no validity.

 

I also don't see this blatant racism in media you speak of. Invariably the villain is almost always potrayed as a white male, and the protagonist from almost and racial or sexual group you can think of. But in most cases, the only protagonist who is universally derided is the white male one, as they are almost always portrayed as an ineffectual idiot, who requires the help of someone else (usually portrayed my someone from a "minority" ) in order to prevail.

To be sure in years past, many "minorities" were portrayed as being "subservient" to white males, but they were rarely, if ever, derided or denigrated.

But I'm sure that if you are predispose to finding it, and you look hard enough, there might be some examples, but then, it's also YOUR choice to perceive it that way.

 

In all seriousness this victim and living in the past mentality is really wearisome. While it's very true that is took a long time for "complete" equality to come about, black people in America have had far more freedom and opportunity than any other emancipated people throughout the world. There are black billionaires, black millionaires, black entertainers held in the highest regard, black sportspeple held in the highest regard, black educators held in the highest regard, black scientists, philosophers, writers, heck, a black person was even voted into the highest, most powerful political position in America. So if everyone except card carrying members or supporters of BLM are racists and bigots, then damn me they are bad at it.

 

Oh and using Wikipedia as your source of information and validation isn't really the best idea, as they have been proven to be ... less than accurate or entirely trustworthy on numerous occasions.

[MrJoseCuervo]

Racism is a problem in America. People use it as a crutch and excuse for their poor choices and to get free stuff.

 

There is only one answer to stopping this trend:

 

[Shadowheart328]

Alright, let's take apart your 'argument' piece by piece:

 

So you espouse the "if you don't 'X', then you ain't black" argument? Interesting. I believe in debate circles they call that a "no true Scotsman" argument.

Never made that argument. I explicitly said they would still be black. I'm not saying that in order to be black you must do x, I'm saying if you are black and do x, other black people are going to think your a huge butthole for doing so and call you out on it. There's a difference. Good try though.

 

Can you provide examples of this "systematic" racism you speak of? Certainly I can find no law or statutes that specifically discriminate against black people, quite the opposite in fact.

Easily. Here is a google document filled with examples of structural (aka Systematic) racism, and here's a good video explaining it. If you don't like that video, here's another good one if you are willing to sit through it. Ben Shapiro did a "debunking" of the first video, if you believe the crap Ben Shapiro states, here is a video debunking all of his points regarding systemic racism as well, but you'd best be ready to sit through it all. All of the videos I provide and the google document provide all the research and evidence you need. You just need to be willing to listen to it.

 

Unless you're referring the the many "affirmative action" statutes of which some, funnily enough, discriminate against other races in favour of blacks.

Except no you're just really uniformed about how affirmative action works. I swear you guys think affirmative action means some random black guy off the street gets to take a job/school from some upstart deserving white kid. That's not how it works at all. It doesn't work on quotas, it works by simply preventing institutions and business from discriminating based on race/sex/sexual orientation alone. It's literally no different from how being a veteran offers you the same protections. But you don't hear people clamoring the streets to complain about veterans taking their jobs because of laws that support them. Nah, only when its minorities.

 

I'm afraid you can't claim that BLM is "politically agnostic" when one of their express aims is to tear down the current political system. Of course I'm assuming that BLM has an alternative political system in mind to replace it with? Otherwise they really are just a terrorist and/or anarchist organisation.

They are politically agnostic. Their members come from all political walks of life. There isn't a political requirement. The only reason they seem political is because pretty much all of their policies are being opposed by the right who just want to keep the status quo. Not BLM's fault that right-wing supporters and institutions want to stand in the way of removing systemic racism in America's justice system, even though it would positively affect everyone. There's not alternative political system? Where do you see them proposing a new form of government? All we are asking and fighting for is reform to justice system, look at what we are doing. And that has nothing to do with being terrorists. Anarchists not really, I'm an Anarchist and they definitely aren't. Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it a terrorist organization or whatever the word of the month is that right-wing supporters are using. That's just you talking out your butt. In fact here is a fact-check proving your butt wrong, because you are definitely implying that they are.

 

 

How do you come to the conclusion that America's first amendment is "explicitly geared towards the government, not the citizens" when it quite categorically negates the governments ability to stop citizens from free expression of their thoughts and even the freedom to challenge the government itself? Perhaps you should read it again?

Because....it is? The First Amendment specifically applies to the government not being able to prevent citizens from saying what they want. It doesn't apply to the citizens themselves. I mean, you wrote it yourself. I think you just misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not saying the first amendment is for the government, I'm saying it applications are strictly to prevent the government doing anything to citizens (within reason, there are still plenty of things that you can say that will get you arrested or in trouble with the law/government) for saying what they want. As such it only applies to the government, and thus trying to apply the first amendment against citizens is a moot point, because as long as they don't physically assault you, they don't have to listen or put up with stuff other people say.

 

I think you need to read a little further into the "Civil Rights" movement. It is far older, and far more complex than you suggest. It was also in no way brought about solely through riots or violence. The idea behind the Civil Rights movement had been raised many times before, and was repeatedly blocked, usually as it turns out, by democrats. Certainly the death of MLK proved to be a catalyst, the "straw that broke the camels back", if you like, but the arguments, speeches and peaceful protests did far more to convince the government that it was time to change than any violence did.

What? I just linked evidence that the only reason the Civil Rights was passed was because of the riots. You do realize MLK wasn't liked by Americans at the time, he had a very low approval rating among whites. Maybe Presiden Johnson agreed with everything King said, but the only reason he was able to even get the law passed in the first place was because of the fear that the riots put in white Americans. So the fear of violence spreading is what caused the Civil Rights acts to pass. Not the peaceful protests. Instead the peaceful protests help spark the violence because black people realized that it didn't matter how peaceful you were, you'd still get shot and nobody would care.

 

BLM have proven themselves to be quite racist and intolerant, and there hundreds of posts and news articles all over the internet from members of BLM to prove that. I will NOT link to them here, as I think they are disgusting and hateful, but a quick and simple search of Google and/or Youtube will show you many examples.

Yup. The typical there is so much proof, but I won't link any of it response. The burden of proof is on you. So far I've linked everything I've stated to back up my claims, if you want to seriously debate do the same. Otherwise it's conjecture. Anyway onto your point. No, BLM isn't a racist organization, it has never said that all white people or that it is calling for the death of police officers. Are there people in an organization that makes up hundreds of thousands of people that believe that, yes. And it would be stupid to believe that, just like it would be stupid to believe that those individuals speak for an entire fluid movement. They don't. But by your logic I guess if I find a few white people who are Nazis or white supremacists, that means all white people are that way. *shrugs*

Here's an example of BLM being accused of wanting to kill cops but it not being true at all.

 

I'm sorry but you don't get to claim that the whole judicial system or the entirety of police departments are discriminatory, but then turn around and say BLM can't be held responsible for what a few members say or do. Either "guilty by association" is applied to all, or it's applied to none.

Except it is. The individuals within it may not be, but the system as a whole is definitely systemic in it's racism. The whole war on drugs was actually a race war, that's a known thing. The fact that black people get higher sentences for the same crimes as white people when all the variables are the same. The fact the black populations where overp-policed due to the fact that systemic racism made them poor and poor communities have higher crime rates. The fact that cops can get away with murdering unarmed black people and be 'justified' in doing. The fact that cops practice arrest quotas and racial bias in their stops against black people. (All of these claims are corroborated in the studies I linked in the google document). It is. That's why there needs to be reform. Not removal, reform.

 

Unless you subscribe to the "rules for thee, but not for me" mentality, in which case you are being disingenuous and dishonest, and your arguments have no validity.

What? I don't even know where this argument was made or where this 'rebuttal' came from. But there aren't going to be any rules that only apply to white people and not black people. And I'm not sure where you get that idea from. We want to be treated equally to white people when it comes to the justice system, not better.

 

I also don't see this blatant racism in media you speak of. Invariably the villain is almost always potrayed as a white male, and the protagonist from almost and racial or sexual group you can think of. But in most cases, the only protagonist who is universally derided is the white male one, as they are almost always portrayed as an ineffectual idiot, who requires the help of someone else (usually portrayed my someone from a "minority" ) in order to prevail.

To be sure in years past, many "minorities" were portrayed as being "subservient" to white males, but they were rarely, if ever, derided or denigrated.

But I'm sure that if you are predispose to finding it, and you look hard enough, there might be some examples, but then, it's also YOUR choice to perceive it that way.

Except it is everywhere. The thing is, and here me out here, you are white. It's very easy to get accustomed to these things and not see the inherent racism because you aren't the target. There is a reason the white male protagonist gets derided, it's because it's done to death, even in situations where a white person should be a factor or exist in the narrative. I mean you even refer to a racist trope yourself, it's coined the Magical Negro trope. It's not a matter of looking hard enough, to those who are targeted it's very obvious. Very. Obvious. I mean, seriously how long ago in the past do you really think this is? Black people only just got their rights in the 1960s. People who are racist as hell are still alive and in power in these industries, and a lot of them keep those ideas alive, they just can't be outright with it anymore. So it's subtle but for those who have been experiencing it for years, it's very easy to spot.

 

In all seriousness this victim and living in the past mentality is really wearisome. While it's very true that is took a long time for "complete" equality to come about, black people in America have had far more freedom and opportunity than any other emancipated people throughout the world. There are black billionaires, black millionaires, black entertainers held in the highest regard, black sportspeple held in the highest regard, black educators held in the highest regard, black scientists, philosophers, writers, heck, a black person was even voted into the highest, most powerful political position in America. So if everyone except card carrying members or supporters of BLM are racists and bigots, then damn me they are bad at it.

Oh here we go with this card. It's a very common talking point in the far-right and right wing groups. "just forget about it", "stop playing victim, it happened so long ago", "move on and let it die" , etc.

Well tell you what, when the fact that we were slaves for most of American history stops affecting our social status, we'll let it go. Till then, we are still victims of it and will continue to bring it up, until America actually acknowledges it.

 

Oh and using Wikipedia as your source of information and validation isn't really the best idea, as they have been proven to be ... less than accurate or entirely trustworthy on numerous occasions.

Wikipedia is fine as a source, so long as you do your research and look at where they are getting their information from. I mainly provide the sources that I read, and typically tell you if I am linking a Wikipedia article to read the sources.

[Deleted54170User]

I think I should keep trying to get into a discussion while learning to debate. If I keep learning to debate, and get good at it, maybe someone will remember me one day. Someone that thinks I should be allowed to hang around with them.

 

I think it's something about this post that caused the debaters to halt using it to wet their fingers while they looked for something around the room to wet their whistles.

 

I'm inclined to see the obvious in this debate and it is a debate. Isn't it?

 

I found some insider information from a book with a story written by a fellow trying his best to get back on the good side of the fence, with the winners.

 

His name is Machiavelli and he wrote the story The Prince. All in all it describes how one colony invades another colony and slowly reaps the rewards, slowly from inside defeats the other colony, and then is wiped out by the people who sent them to defeat the other colony. All the while the leaders of their old colony were promising them all that land, which they could win. That is, the extended family of the previous colony where they were crowding the dining table causing a shortage of food because they didn't have a big enough crop, herd, flock, or such to feed all their weak minded, dolts, stupid tough guys, and half-wits.

 

They that became the reason the colony was overpopulated were sent off on a mission and told they could keep any land they got as their own. Yup! They took over another colony and they all were buried with that colonies previous colonist.

 

The people from their original colony sent their well trained well armed toughs to the new colony and slowly wiped them out the same way and took the land there. Buried the rest of their old rejected members rotting corpses with that old colonies dead to decay a long time.

 

I found it amusing to see how I could, just me, upset a city because I planted one of the thorns in their crown of pristine godliness. She was a beauty, she gained some scholarly incite from what I said about education. I was just reading a book in my dungeon, in the basement. I was down there a long time because one day I kissed her. I was perdy munch grounded until I was almost 12.

 

She went away before we could get beyond the first kiss, she became a teacher, knew too many good things and ways of a teaching from the college she went to too (no one wanted her teaching in our fair cities schools so boys might want a different life than a smelter worker, she was fired, and she moved away with her husband (she forgot all about our first kiss when I was six and she was five) and taught quietly in a forgotten railroad town where the families of the smelter town forgot her.

 

Machiavelli was almost forgotten and then he wrote a book that almost raised the attention high enough to someone like me to read and comprehend another book. Seriously too much for my young mind to understand at the time. I would have liked it if my parents were more communicative so I could have understood the book's many adult meanings. The Art of War! Which was, still, only partially translated to English UK and I had a lot of trouble pronouncing an older original language; spoken; written in the pages untranslated, that was other than Canton or Mandarin Chinese. Sun Tzu I think I thought it was pronounced "Sun Yet Soon" properly.

 

Bye, Buy. See you down at (... phszzit ...) They must have closed that Searing place where you live too.

[righteousgoddoward]

George Floyd finally found sobriety.