Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Purgatory : Where is the Ship going?

11718192123

Comments

  • It's the same as the BLM riots. The principle is important, and I actually feel the US needs to do something to fix the egregiously unjust divide between black and white people.

    But once the rioting and looting begins, I turn away and wish a pox on the lot of them. I have no time for those bringing violence to politics, nor do I have much time for those who fail to get their content across because of the words they use are repellent.

    So what fraction of the supporters of a particular opinion or ideology have to behave "badly" before you wish "a pox on the lot of them"? 'cause in this particular case, the vast majority of protests in the wake of George Floyd's murder (both by number of protests, and by number of protesters) were purely peaceful. Peaceful protests have far outnumbered riots and looting.

    And yet that isn't obvious is it. To me it is all one violent, anarchic movement. They talk about abolishing the police or taking away their finances, which is the same thing. They set up no go areas, and insist on getting their own way. This isn't democracy, it is violent anarchy, designed to overthrow the rule of law, and I support the application of violence by the authorities to stop them.

    Perhaps the peaceful protestors ought to think about dissociating themselves from the violence, and if they are, the message isn't getting though.
  • It's the same as the BLM riots. The principle is important, and I actually feel the US needs to do something to fix the egregiously unjust divide between black and white people.

    But once the rioting and looting begins, I turn away and wish a pox on the lot of them. I have no time for those bringing violence to politics, nor do I have much time for those who fail to get their content across because of the words they use are repellent.

    So what fraction of the supporters of a particular opinion or ideology have to behave "badly" before you wish "a pox on the lot of them"? 'cause in this particular case, the vast majority of protests in the wake of George Floyd's murder (both by number of protests, and by number of protesters) were purely peaceful. Peaceful protests have far outnumbered riots and looting.

    And yet that isn't obvious is it. To me it is all one violent, anarchic movement. They talk about abolishing the police or taking away their finances, which is the same thing.

    Have you bothered to understand why or what it would mean in practice rather than in the Mad Max nightmare you've conjured on your head? You also keep saying it's violent, but all the specifics you mention are non-violent.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    And yet that isn't obvious is it. To me it is all one violent, anarchic movement. They talk about abolishing the police or taking away their finances, which is the same thing.

    Ah yes, the violence inherent in municipal budgetary debates. Truly terrible!
    They set up no go areas, and insist on getting their own way.

    I think the word you're looking for (or trying to avoid) is "uppity".
    This isn't democracy, it is violent anarchy, designed to overthrow the rule of law, and I support the application of violence by the authorities to stop them.

    Have you considered the possibility that your approval of police using violence against anyone who tries to change their department's budget could also be considered "violent anarchy, designed to overthrow the rule of law"?
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    This isn't democracy, it is violent anarchy, designed to overthrow the rule of law.
    Could easily apply to police officers killing a man for having a dud $20 note, or using weapons banned in international conflict against crowds who have the audacity to walk down the street waving placards and chanting "I can't breathe", or sending renta-cops in military gear to remove members of a church who were distributing bottles of water and hand sanitiser from their own property so that a politician could have a photo-op.

  • And yet that isn't obvious is it. To me it is all one violent, anarchic movement. They set up no go areas, and insist on getting their own way.

    Fair enough. I see lots of news reports of police killing unarmed black men, arresting black men for being the victim of a crime, shooting dead people in a mental heath crisis in order to protect them, being abusive towards black citizens for no reason other than their temerity to be black, and so on. They set up barricades, bark orders, insist on getting their own way, and are unwilling to listen to the citizenry. They attack people peacefully standing and protesting.

    So why should I not consider the police all one violent, thuggish movement?

    Perhaps the peaceful police who actually want to serve and protect the public ought to think about dissociating themselves from the violent thugs? 'cause right now, the message that is coming through from the Fraternal Order of Police (basically the police union) is that they support the racists, the violent, the abusive, and the aggressive.

    Now, I don't think this characterization of the police is quite fair, but it's an awful lot nearer the mark than the impression that you have of the BLM protests.
  • It's the same as the BLM riots. The principle is important, and I actually feel the US needs to do something to fix the egregiously unjust divide between black and white people.

    But once the rioting and looting begins, I turn away and wish a pox on the lot of them. I have no time for those bringing violence to politics, nor do I have much time for those who fail to get their content across because of the words they use are repellent.

    So what fraction of the supporters of a particular opinion or ideology have to behave "badly" before you wish "a pox on the lot of them"? 'cause in this particular case, the vast majority of protests in the wake of George Floyd's murder (both by number of protests, and by number of protesters) were purely peaceful. Peaceful protests have far outnumbered riots and looting.

    And yet that isn't obvious is it. To me it is all one violent, anarchic movement. They talk about abolishing the police or taking away their finances, which is the same thing.

    Have you bothered to understand why or what it would mean in practice rather than in the Mad Max nightmare you've conjured on your head? You also keep saying it's violent, but all the specifics you mention are non-violent.

    If you get rid of the police you have no means to maintain law and order, resulting in anarchy. The non-violent things demanded by the protestors will result in violence. That is not acceptable to me, and I suspect to millions of ordinary Americans.
  • It's the same as the BLM riots. The principle is important, and I actually feel the US needs to do something to fix the egregiously unjust divide between black and white people.

    But once the rioting and looting begins, I turn away and wish a pox on the lot of them. I have no time for those bringing violence to politics, nor do I have much time for those who fail to get their content across because of the words they use are repellent.

    So what fraction of the supporters of a particular opinion or ideology have to behave "badly" before you wish "a pox on the lot of them"? 'cause in this particular case, the vast majority of protests in the wake of George Floyd's murder (both by number of protests, and by number of protesters) were purely peaceful. Peaceful protests have far outnumbered riots and looting.

    And yet that isn't obvious is it. To me it is all one violent, anarchic movement. They talk about abolishing the police or taking away their finances, which is the same thing.

    Have you bothered to understand why or what it would mean in practice rather than in the Mad Max nightmare you've conjured on your head? You also keep saying it's violent, but all the specifics you mention are non-violent.

    If you get rid of the police you have no means to maintain law and order, resulting in anarchy. The non-violent things demanded by the protestors will result in violence. That is not acceptable to me, and I suspect to millions of ordinary Americans.

    So that's a "no" then.
  • It's the same as the BLM riots. The principle is important, and I actually feel the US needs to do something to fix the egregiously unjust divide between black and white people.

    But once the rioting and looting begins, I turn away and wish a pox on the lot of them. I have no time for those bringing violence to politics, nor do I have much time for those who fail to get their content across because of the words they use are repellent.

    So what fraction of the supporters of a particular opinion or ideology have to behave "badly" before you wish "a pox on the lot of them"? 'cause in this particular case, the vast majority of protests in the wake of George Floyd's murder (both by number of protests, and by number of protesters) were purely peaceful. Peaceful protests have far outnumbered riots and looting.

    And yet that isn't obvious is it. To me it is all one violent, anarchic movement. They talk about abolishing the police or taking away their finances, which is the same thing.

    Have you bothered to understand why or what it would mean in practice rather than in the Mad Max nightmare you've conjured on your head? You also keep saying it's violent, but all the specifics you mention are non-violent.

    If you get rid of the police you have no means to maintain law and order, resulting in anarchy. The non-violent things demanded by the protestors will result in violence. That is not acceptable to me, and I suspect to millions of ordinary Americans.

    So that's a "no" then.

    Do I need to know any more than that? I don't believe I do.

    Violence by citizens is a definite no. It is acceptable if it is carried out by an elected government , in order to protect its citizens from violence as a result of criminal behaviour, or to enforce foreign policy.

    But citizens don't get that option. All violence on their part is criminal behaviour, and in the specific BLM riots we are discussing, part of a dedicate effort to enforce anarchic, no-go areas unless you agree with the rioters political stance.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Violence . . . is acceptable if it is carried out by an elected government , in order to protect its citizens from violence as a result of criminal behaviour, or to enforce foreign policy.

    Or to beat up anyone who wants to alter the police budget. Don't forget that one!

    Gotta protect folks from those George Floyds, Eric Garners, and Tamir Rices after all!

    And don't even think self defense is an option. That's a "definite no", unless you use it against someone with the right skin color, of course. George Zimmerman can stand his ground. Trayvon Martin is not allowed to.

    At any rate, there's an interesting disparity between the assertion that the police prevent violent anarchy and the fact that the places that have the most violence and anarchy also seem to have the most concentrated police presence. If you're a middle-class white American the police pretty much don't exist as a practical reality in your life. Certainly not the heavily militarized version we see in poorer and darker-complected neighborhoods. That absence doesn't seem to lead to the hellscape @Thatcheright describes. Maybe heavily militarized police like we see in American cities are less effective in crime prevention than, for example, the availability of good jobs and decent schools?

    Nah, it's all about an elected government (sort of) "protect[ing] its citizens" from black people who don't know their place.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin Emeritus
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Which option do you think Doc?

    I think civil rights should be extended to all citizens of a country, regardless of race, age, sex, gender or physical or mental ability, with very few caveats, and that those rights are non-negotiable.

    And that is what I think.

    Great. Let me know how you get on in Saudi Arabia.

    I think you've probably answered your own question from earlier.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Dafyd wrote: »
    But even if one does belong to a side is one responsible for other posters on that side? It doesn't seem to me constructive in any way to call out lilbuddha, for example, every time she spams her opinions across the board and refuses to back down.

    Host hat on
    This was a while ago, I know, but RL intervened, and a need to verify my impression. This is too much like a personal attack to belong in Purgatory. Don’t repeat, please.
    Host hat off
    BroJames Purgatory Host
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    And at monopolising this board with three gobshites, which is infuriating.
    I suppose it's a case of not entering the kitchen if the heat is too much.

    "The Ship is what it always was... a sounding board for dour, humorous lefties, a safe space for the economically illiterate,"

    It's really hard to tell what you're doing here. Who is the second quote by? Why is it juxtaposed to the first?
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    NSFW: reasons to swear https://youtu.be/a0c9K5jOkp8.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Thatcheright. You very very rarely see me using that kind of language. It takes a lot to make me swear in real life let alone on a forum. There are many like me. You do not seem to see them. You also do not seem to see others from various political stances who do not swear. No one is a plaster saint.
    The content is more important not the words.

    Not if the words repel people enough that they turn away before picking up the content.

    And they call us snowflakes.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    And at monopolising this board with three gobshites, which is infuriating.
    I suppose it's a case of not entering the kitchen if the heat is too much.

    "The Ship is what it always was... a sounding board for dour, humorous lefties, a safe space for the economically illiterate,"

    It's really hard to tell what you're doing here. Who is the second quote by? Why is it juxtaposed to the first?

    If Kwesi really believed that people should 'police' the expression of those with whom they share some political beliefs, then I presume we'd see evidence of him doing likewise. The quote is from the OP.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    And at monopolising this board with three gobshites, which is infuriating.
    I suppose it's a case of not entering the kitchen if the heat is too much.

    "The Ship is what it always was... a sounding board for dour, humorous lefties, a safe space for the economically illiterate,"

    It's really hard to tell what you're doing here. Who is the second quote by? Why is it juxtaposed to the first?

    If Kwesi really believed that people should 'police' the expression of those with whom they share some political beliefs, then I presume we'd see evidence of him doing likewise. The quote is from the OP.

    I see.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    I can remember encountering people back in the 1980s for whom performative callousness was a thing but I can't remember it being nearly so much of a thing as it is now. It must be attractive to some people or they wouldn't do it. But I can't for the life of me see the attraction. It's like thinking it's admirable to walk into someone's house and take a shit on the coffee table after breaking their children's toys. It's really neither right wing nor left, just pathological.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    The title of this should be "Where is this Thread Going?"
  • Caissa wrote: »
    The title of this should be "Where is this Thread Going?"

    Oh I don't know. I think it is a perfect example of the whole Ship and the direction it is doomed to take.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    ...that a lot of white people care more about property than about the lives of black people.

    To be fair, I think the word "white" could be removed and the word "black" replaced by "other" without massively altering the truth of that statement.
  • This.
  • KwesiKwesi Deckhand, Styx
    chrisstiles to mouse thief: If Kwesi really believed that people should 'police' the expression of those with whom they share some political beliefs, then I presume we'd see evidence of him doing likewise.

    What makes you so certain that's not what I was attempting? You seem to assume that because I criticise those on the left I don't share their causes in some measure. Because George Orwell wrote, Homage to Catalonia, Animal Farm, and 1984 it didn't make him a man of the right, did it? Of course, not a few did!
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    ...that a lot of white people care more about property than about the lives of black people.

    To be fair, I think the word "white" could be removed and the word "black" replaced by "other" without massively altering the truth of that statement.
    But it massively alters the effect.
    Seriously, WTF are you not getting about the power dynamic?
  • Both and

    Not either or?




  • The power dynamic's the thing. The hypocrisy and selfishness are one thing when applied in a situation of equality of status or punching up. They become something wholly different, dark, and sinister when applied in a situation of punching down.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    Both and

    Not either or?



    the problem with both and is that it still attempts to equate them and there is no equity there

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    Both and

    Not either or?
    Just to make this clear, let us put the whole thing in context.
    @Crœsos made a contextual counter to a typically right-wing bullshit posturing. So the reply from @Marvin the Martian is problematic in one of two ways. It either directly equates the posited reversal as equivalent within the context of that interchange or it ignores the real world effects of racism.
    Either way it doesn't work.
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    chrisstiles to mouse thief: If Kwesi really believed that people should 'police' the expression of those with whom they share some political beliefs, then I presume we'd see evidence of him doing likewise.
    What makes you so certain that's not what I was attempting?

    Excellent, in which case you are free to junior host 'the leftists' yourself, and don't need to encourage the rest of us to do so.
  • I think the leftists are gorgeous, and their language is like a babbling brook. But who are they?
  • amyboamybo Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    ...that a lot of white people care more about property than about the lives of black people.

    To be fair, I think the word "white" could be removed and the word "black" replaced by "other" without massively altering the truth of that statement.

    The whole system in the US (I won't speak for other places) is structured to devalue Black lives. So no, it's not the same.
  • MrMandidMrMandid Castaway
    amybo wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    ...that a lot of white people care more about property than about the lives of black people.

    To be fair, I think the word "white" could be removed and the word "black" replaced by "other" without massively altering the truth of that statement.

    The whole system in the US (I won't speak for other places) is structured to devalue Black lives. So no, it's not the same.

    Can you define "the system" for me please.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    MrMandid wrote: »
    amybo wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    ...that a lot of white people care more about property than about the lives of black people.

    To be fair, I think the word "white" could be removed and the word "black" replaced by "other" without massively altering the truth of that statement.

    The whole system in the US (I won't speak for other places) is structured to devalue Black lives. So no, it's not the same.

    Can you define "the system" for me please.
    The government, federal, state, county and city, and white society in general,* but in specifically those who actively pursued inequity and inequality.

    *Obviously not every white person, but the active and passive racism that general white society participated in or ignored.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    MrMandid wrote: »
    amybo wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    ...that a lot of white people care more about property than about the lives of black people.

    To be fair, I think the word "white" could be removed and the word "black" replaced by "other" without massively altering the truth of that statement.

    The whole system in the US (I won't speak for other places) is structured to devalue Black lives. So no, it's not the same.

    Can you define "the system" for me please.
    The government, federal, state, county and city, and white society in general,* but in specifically those who actively pursued inequity and inequality.

    *Obviously not every white person, but the active and passive racism that general white society participated in or ignored.
    Add in estate agents more likely to show better properties to white people, employers more likely to give better jobs to white people, mortgage and loan companies more likely to give better deals to white people (in part a result of non-white people having shittier jobs and housing), cops more likely to stop and arrest black people, the media more likely to interview white people ...
  • MrMandidMrMandid Castaway
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    MrMandid wrote: »
    amybo wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    ...that a lot of white people care more about property than about the lives of black people.

    To be fair, I think the word "white" could be removed and the word "black" replaced by "other" without massively altering the truth of that statement.

    The whole system in the US (I won't speak for other places) is structured to devalue Black lives. So no, it's not the same.

    Can you define "the system" for me please.
    The government, federal, state, county and city, and white society in general,* but in specifically those who actively pursued inequity and inequality.

    *Obviously not every white person, but the active and passive racism that general white society participated in or ignored.

    So US government then? (In is various forms).
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    The system = societal structures and institutions. So government, yes, and also businesses, schools, churches, etc. Even when Black people are in charge of those things, they tend to be racist because they exist within larger structures dominated by whites and white supremacy.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    MrMandid wrote: »
    amybo wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    ...that a lot of white people care more about property than about the lives of black people.

    To be fair, I think the word "white" could be removed and the word "black" replaced by "other" without massively altering the truth of that statement.

    The whole system in the US (I won't speak for other places) is structured to devalue Black lives. So no, it's not the same.

    Can you define "the system" for me please.
    The government, federal, state, county and city, and white society in general,* but in specifically those who actively pursued inequity and inequality.

    *Obviously not every white person, but the active and passive racism that general white society participated in or ignored.
    Add in estate agents more likely to show better properties to white people, employers more likely to give better jobs to white people, mortgage and loan companies more likely to give better deals to white people (in part a result of non-white people having shittier jobs and housing), cops more likely to stop and arrest black people, the media more likely to interview white people ...
    I had thought that implicit in my post, but I guess it wasn't. But, yes, all those people are part of systemic inequality.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    The system = societal structures and institutions. So government, yes, and also businesses, schools, churches, etc. Even when Black people are in charge of those things, they tend to be racist because they exist within larger structures dominated by whites and white supremacy.

    e.g. majority black school districts tend to be less well-funded than white ones.
  • MrMandid wrote: »
    So US government then? (In is various forms).

    You clearly missed where she said "state, county, and city."
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Mr.Mandid should probaly read Ralph Miiband's The State in Capitalist Society. In this essay, Leo Panitch dicusses why this work is still relevant today.
    https://socialistproject.ca/2019/07/states-and-capitalist-society/
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    MrMandid wrote: »
    So US government then? (In is various forms).

    You clearly missed where she said "state, county, and city."
    He missed everything almost everybody said in reply. Boggles the mind.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    MrMandid wrote: »
    amybo wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    ...that a lot of white people care more about property than about the lives of black people.

    To be fair, I think the word "white" could be removed and the word "black" replaced by "other" without massively altering the truth of that statement.

    The whole system in the US (I won't speak for other places) is structured to devalue Black lives. So no, it's not the same.

    Can you define "the system" for me please.
    The government, federal, state, county and city, and white society in general,* but in specifically those who actively pursued inequity and inequality.

    *Obviously not every white person, but the active and passive racism that general white society participated in or ignored.
    Add in estate agents more likely to show better properties to white people, employers more likely to give better jobs to white people, mortgage and loan companies more likely to give better deals to white people (in part a result of non-white people having shittier jobs and housing), cops more likely to stop and arrest black people, the media more likely to interview white people ...
    I had thought that implicit in my post, but I guess it wasn't. But, yes, all those people are part of systemic inequality.
    I'd say it was implicit, but if MrMandid sincerely wants to learn then Alan's post will be helpful as those are more examples of racism that many white people have not thought of.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    So the reply from @Marvin the Martian is problematic in one of two ways. It either directly equates the posited reversal as equivalent within the context of that interchange or it ignores the real world effects of racism.

    You’re overthinking it. My point was simply that a lot of people would rather see their property defended than the lives of other people whom they don’t know.

    Though I’ll also note that not everything that happens to negatively affect someone who is black is racist. The test of racism is whether the exact same thing would happen to anyone else under the same circumstances regardless of skin colour.

    People objecting to violent protests/riots are not racist just because the current violent protests/riots happen to be done by black people. They may just object to any kind of violent protest/riot. To demonstrate racism you’d have to demonstrate that they would be perfectly fine with white people carrying out violent protests/riots.
  • Robert ArminRobert Armin Shipmate, Glory
    I believe it is important to think about how tolerant the Ship is of diverse political views. Well, I would do, I wrote the original post.

    However, I find it hard to believe that anyone can think a society is not racist when black parents have to teach their children how to minimise the chances of getting killed by the police. Has any white parent in the West had to do this since the fall of the Nazis and the Soviet Union?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    You’re overthinking it. My point was simply that a lot of people would rather see their property defended than the lives of other people whom they don’t know.

    Never said anything about "their property", just "property". You may consider it perfectly natural to see a car hit a pedestrian and think "I sure hope that car is okay", but most people would find that abhorrent. Well, usually. A lot of folks were more upset that a Target got damaged than the fact the George Floyd was murdered by police, but I suppose a lot of white Americans know Target a lot better than they know any black people. Probably like it a lot better, too.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    So the reply from @Marvin the Martian is problematic in one of two ways. It either directly equates the posited reversal as equivalent within the context of that interchange or it ignores the real world effects of racism.

    You’re overthinking it.
    No, you are under-representing the context of your statement.
    My point was simply that a lot of people would rather see their property defended than the lives of other people whom they don’t know.
    Except that Thatcheright was not talking about his property. And that bullshit line is used by right-wingers to pretend they care without actually giving a shit.
    Though I’ll also note that not everything that happens to negatively affect someone who is black is racist. The test of racism is whether the exact same thing would happen to anyone else under the same circumstances regardless of skin colour.
    Which is another line that has the same problem as the first. In the context of this discussion and this point in time, we are seeing shit that happens to black people far more than it does to white with far less consequence far too often.
    People objecting to violent protests/riots are not racist just because the current violent protests/riots happen to be done by black people. They may just object to any kind of violent protest/riot. To demonstrate racism you’d have to demonstrate that they would be perfectly fine with white people carrying out violent protests/riots.
    Bullshit. For The stakes are not the same, the years of treatment are not the same. This is the same ridiculous logic as defending/diminishing white racism by saying black people can be racist as well.
    "I would support X, if they were just more polite" is complete and total bullshit. It means the speaker doesn't support X. Full stop.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    "I would support X, if they were just more polite" is complete and total bullshit. It means the speaker doesn't support X. Full stop.

    You’re getting very close to saying that if one supports a particular position or cause then one must support everything that anyone does while claiming it to be in the name of that cause.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin Emeritus
    People objecting to violent protests/riots are not racist just because the current violent protests/riots happen to be done by black people. They may just object to any kind of violent protest/riot. To demonstrate racism you’d have to demonstrate that they would be perfectly fine with white people carrying out violent protests/riots.

    I can demonstrate that people are fine with the predominantly white police killing black people, beating peaceful protesters, blinding reporters, using war gases on civilian populations, and violating their civil liberties and constitutional rights. And some of those things are very racist indeed.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin Emeritus
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    "I would support X, if they were just more polite" is complete and total bullshit. It means the speaker doesn't support X. Full stop.

    You’re getting very close to saying that if one supports a particular position or cause then one must support everything that anyone does while claiming it to be in the name of that cause.

    No, history proves her absolutely right. Literally, the thing that changes legislation is impolitely (not necessarily violently, though the authorities nearly always bring that to the table first) demanding.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    "I would support X, if they were just more polite" is complete and total bullshit. It means the speaker doesn't support X. Full stop.

    You’re getting very close to saying that if one supports a particular position or cause then one must support everything that anyone does while claiming it to be in the name of that cause.
    Yeah, but no. I' saying that people who say they would support a cause but for the behaviour of some are typically lying. Though, to be fair, sometimes to themselves. No rights have ever been won by adhering to the standards of the oppressors.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Oppressors demand that oppressed people exercise non-violence when they're demanding change. Oppressors never apply the same standard to themselves.
Sign In or Register to comment.