FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » old man blogs at cloud (Page 18)

  This topic comprises 37 pages: 1  2  3  ...  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  ...  35  36  37   
Author Topic: old man blogs at cloud
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Police unions actually.

So for people who think it isn't too onerous for poor people to acquire ID, how are they supposed to do so if there isn't even a DMV in their county?

quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
And on the other hand we get:

quote:
And Sanders seems to be that rare thing among politicians: A decent human being who refuses to engage in personal attacks while trusting the people to listen to actual ideas and programs as they decide whom to vote for.

If I had to choose between Sanders and Trump, Iíd choose Sanders.

Sanders really does seem to appeal to a lot of people across a broad political spectrum. He's pretty difficult to hate.
He isn't black.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, Walker doesn't like police unions. Rather, he's letting them exist as long as they promise to stump for him.
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
No, Walker doesn't like police unions. Rather, he's letting them exist as long as they promise to stump for him.

This is usually the case for most Republican and right leaning independent politicians. They usually rely on the support of police unions; I can't really think of any prominent police union getting busted by a Republican.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Something funny happened a couple years ago when Walker proposed eliminating job protections for police and firemen over the objections of their unions (which had supported his original election.) Watching them try to figure out how to respond to that proposal was pure schadenfreude.
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
This week is a fun one:

quote:
His enemies try to portray him as anti-union, but that is false.

what the hell universe do you even have to be from to say this and not realize that it may actually be one of the dumbest and most clearly untrue things you have ever said

no like seriously, is this a stealth comedy routine and in a month or two andy kaufman's gonna jump out and go 'surprise i've been ghostwriting for osc for years lol lololol'

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with him that Rubio/Fiorina is their best shot. That ticket has the best chance of getting them some of the Hispanic and possibly women vote that they'll definitely need.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A) They'll never be nominated. B) They'd not win anyway.

So I'm liking this election season so far.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
I agree with him that Rubio/Fiorina is their best shot. That ticket has the best chance of getting them some of the Hispanic and possibly women vote that they'll definitely need.

Fiorina I don't think represents womens issues at all so I don't know how it'd get any Democratic or undecided women voters. Maybe +1% from low information voters if Hillary isn't the Democratic nom. Republican women would vote R either way.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nah, you have an information bias. It's not about undecided or "women voters." It's all about turnout. Women would show up to vote for a woman. That's the difference maker.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
i'm still not over that he says walker being 'anti-union' is a false accusation by liberals
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fiorina is good TV. She's a mile wide and an inch deep, but lucky for her, Americans aren't very good at digging beneath the surface. Between the two of them, they'd likely have a very slick, smooth-talking, well-debated candidacy that I think would do very well. And I think they hit a demographic sweet spot that would peel away voters.

I think they'd also lose some of their core angry white man constituency who just can't get over voting for a POC and a woman. So they might even out (except the non-voters would likely come from states that would already be safely theirs, so they probably still win that).

I definitely wouldn't write them off as a successful duo, especially given Hillary's continuing dysfunction as a candidate, and Bernie's general X Factor which makes it hard to know who will do what when it comes to voting for him. I suspect, however, that minority voters won't be super excited for him, and minority turnout is key for Democratic wins. They'll definitely turn out for Hillary.

I think Hillary loses some of the youth vote, who, when they turn out (even more so now with their sheer numbers), can sway an entire election. Bernies has the chance to lead a youth wave to the White House. I don't think Hillary does.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:

I definitely wouldn't write them off as a successful duo, especially given Hillary's continuing dysfunction as a candidate, and Bernie's general X Factor which makes it hard to know who will do what when it comes to voting for him. I suspect, however, that minority voters won't be super excited for him, and minority turnout is key for Democratic wins. They'll definitely turn out for Hillary.

The dude was part of the civil rights movement. He marched with MLK. What makes you think he'll be far less popular with minority voters than Clinton?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He probably is thinking that some Bill mojo rubs off on Hilary, since black folks are supposed to love him. And I guess with Bernie, it's a case of "what have you done for me lately." Which is stupid, I know, but nobody ever accused voters of being critical thinkers.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:

I definitely wouldn't write them off as a successful duo, especially given Hillary's continuing dysfunction as a candidate, and Bernie's general X Factor which makes it hard to know who will do what when it comes to voting for him. I suspect, however, that minority voters won't be super excited for him, and minority turnout is key for Democratic wins. They'll definitely turn out for Hillary.

The dude was part of the civil rights movement. He marched with MLK. What makes you think he'll be far less popular with minority voters than Clinton?
The polls support both of those statements so far.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Source? (I don't doubt you, I'm just having trouble finding a recent one)

I can't find any articles more recent than 3 months ago on the subject, but from what the ones in June say, the issue isn't so much that minorities don't like Sanders as they didn't know who he was - his main supporters at the beginning of his campaign were young white people. (The dreaded "millennials") I haven't found *any* articles indicating that, should Sanders be the Democratic candidate, minority voters won't come out for him or will vote Republican. (Which is what Lyrhawn is suggesting)

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hillary has done a lot for black people since her constituency well includes a lot of black people while Bernie represents Vermont, which as I hear it doesn't have a lot. So Hillary has a long and consistent history of advancing issues and policies directly important and pertinent to minorities and that's huge.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
Source? (I don't doubt you, I'm just having trouble finding a recent one)

I can't find any articles more recent than 3 months ago on the subject, but from what the ones in June say, the issue isn't so much that minorities don't like Sanders as they didn't know who he was - his main supporters at the beginning of his campaign were young white people. (The dreaded "millennials") I haven't found *any* articles indicating that, should Sanders be the Democratic candidate, minority voters won't come out for him or will vote Republican. (Which is what Lyrhawn is suggesting)

I definitely don't think a Sanders candidacy makes black and Latino voters switch to voting for Republicans. But I think it does lead to an enthusiasm gap that leads many of them to stay home. And for a Democrat that's just as bad. Black constituencies in key states are one of the biggest factors that determine whether a Democrat wins the White House.

The last poll I saw said that fewer than a quarter of all minorities even know who Sanders is, and of those who do, half have a good impression of him. Not really awe inspiring numbers. He's had some bad run-ins with black activists lately, and has a history of not being exciting about talking about race in terms of race, rather than race in terms of socioeconomics, which pisses a lot of minorities off (understandably so).

He's coming around on the issue a lot (or rather, coming around on the idea that he needs to change his messaging), and a lot of minorities will rubber stamp whoever the Democratic candidate is, but at the moment there's no sign that minorities are in any way excited about him. Or indeed, largely even aware that he exists.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
He's had some bad run-ins with black activists lately...
To be fair to Sanders, though, that's entirely due to the rudeness of those activists.
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can see both sides of the argument. Arguably, sitting at a lunch counter you're not supposed to sit at is also rude. I know it's an extreme example, but folks in the struggle don't usually get air time by being polite. You have to ask if Bernie would have released the plan he released about crime, race relations, prisons etc. if BLM hadn't gotten in his face so much so fast. I actually think, in the long run, they did him a big favor.

Edit to add: At no point did I really mean that as an attack on Sanders. His "bad run ins" weren't his fault, and I thought he responded as well as anyone could.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Rude" and "wrong" are not synonymous here. The protesters who rushed the stage and took the mike from him in Seattle were inarguably rude and disrespectful to do so. It was also (probably) their only real chance of getting their message to 20,000+ white people in Seattle in such a forceful and direct manner.

Whether, in retrospect, it was also the *right* or effective thing to do is debatable. It didn't hurt Sanders at all - from what I understand, it actually boosted his popularity, and he got the chance to speak again shortly thereafter. (to a larger crowd) Whether it helped or hurt the BLM movement is another matter, and one I'm not sure about.

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I can see both sides of the argument. Arguably, sitting at a lunch counter you're not supposed to sit at is also rude.

I understand it's subtle, but are you suggesting that crashing the mic at a campaign event is equivalent to sitting at the front of the bus in Birmingham? That's a reach sir.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FlyingCow
Member
Member # 2150

 - posted      Profile for FlyingCow   Email FlyingCow         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not a huge reach, to be honest.

It was probably a bigger breach of the social contract (ruder?) to sit in the front of the bus or at the wrong lunch counter at that time than it was to get up on stage and grab a mic in the post Kanye/Taylor world - and it risked far greater reprisals.

I didn't see anything hugely wrong with the Bernie Sanders interruption from the BLM perspective. The people it really rankled the most were in large part people who weren't giving BLM the time of day, anyway. The people who were there to listen to Bernie were also likely a more receptive audience for their message, and a group that they ordinarily wouldn't have a chance to speak to.

I think the misstep for me was holding onto the microphone so long that Bernie left the event - it was a missed opportunity to engage with the candidate directly after the event, like Hillary did with BLM proponents the following week (even though her message to them was a little tone deaf, imo). Interrupting an event is one thing, taking an opportunity to get the message out, but shutting it down is another, and probably tied more frustration to the BLM message in the eyes of an audience who gathered for a specific reason that was no longer possible.

Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I love you FlyingCow and I'm gonna LET YOU FINISH. But Rosa Parks made the greatest act of passive resistance of ALL TIME.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FlyingCow:
Not a huge reach, to be honest.

It was probably a bigger breach of the social contract (ruder?) to sit in the front of the bus or at the wrong lunch counter at that time than it was to get up on stage and grab a mic in the post Kanye/Taylor world - and it risked far greater reprisals.

Do you think the people calling the BLM activists who took the mic from Bernie rude are doing so because they're black? Like, do you think we live in a society where it's socially acceptable to do that, but only if you're a white person orrr?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
I love you FlyingCow and I'm gonna LET YOU FINISH. But Rosa Parks made the greatest act of passive resistance of ALL TIME.

Unless you count Claudette Colvin. And are specifically talking about buses.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My problem with the BLM/Bernie mike incident is that I have no idea what their message was (besides generically something about Black Lives Mattering). I know they interrupted Bernie and people consider it rude. Ditto with the highway stunt.

When you keep showing up a lunch counter an getting kicked out, the message is that it is stupid that people are being banned from the lunch counter based on skin color (versus, say a reasonable reason, like stealing all the ketchup packets last week). With the bus boycotts, the message is that seating on busses should be open.

With the BLM movement, there's no clear recourse to end unconscious bias among police officers. You can do sensitivity training, but does it actually work? Will it happen for the people who actually get into this situations? Or will people just turn their body cameras off? And it's a constitutional right not to re-try someone once they've had their trial.

And so law-abiding citizens who have never experienced the police abusing power because they have lived law abiding lives in boring suburbia and don't see the privileges they get from their skin color find it upsetting to see an institution that only does good in their eyes could be corrupt.

Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FlyingCow
Member
Member # 2150

 - posted      Profile for FlyingCow   Email FlyingCow         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:
Originally posted by FlyingCow:
Not a huge reach, to be honest.

It was probably a bigger breach of the social contract (ruder?) to sit in the front of the bus or at the wrong lunch counter at that time than it was to get up on stage and grab a mic in the post Kanye/Taylor world - and it risked far greater reprisals.

Do you think the people calling the BLM activists who took the mic from Bernie rude are doing so because they're black? Like, do you think we live in a society where it's socially acceptable to do that, but only if you're a white person orrr?
Um.... no? O.o

Not sure where you got that from.

<rereads what I wrote, and what I was responding to>

Nope... still not sure where you got that from. And it's such a non-sequitur that I'm not sure how to respond.

I don't think that the people calling them rude are doing so because they are black. Nor do I feel that their action is socially acceptable (note: whether or not I accept something is entirely different from whether it is "socially" acceptable).

Orincoro noted that comparisons to the actions of the civil rights movement were a reach. I disagreed. When a voice is not being heard, it is sometimes necessarily to breach the social contract (be rude) - whether that is by sitting somewhere you are not allowed, or speaking somewhere you are not allowed.

In the case of the BLM protesters at the Bernie Sanders event, I think any reference to their "rudeness" is irrelevant. The question is whether their breach of the social contract was effective, or not.

Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FlyingCow:
Um.... no? O.o

Not sure where you got that from.

<rereads what I wrote, and what I was responding to>

Nope... still not sure where you got that from. And it's such a non-sequitur that I'm not sure how to respond.

I don't think that the people calling them rude are doing so because they are black. Nor do I feel that their action is socially acceptable (note: whether or not I accept something is entirely different from whether it is "socially" acceptable).

Orincoro noted that comparisons to the actions of the civil rights movement were a reach. I disagreed.


When a voice is not being heard, it is sometimes necessarily to breach the social contract (be rude) - whether that is by sitting somewhere you are not allowed, or speaking somewhere you are not allowed.

*sigh*

Let's try this again.

Do you think the BLM activists were "not allowed" (by which you mean, not booked) to speak at that rally because they were black?

quote:
In the case of the BLM protesters at the Bernie Sanders event, I think any reference to their "rudeness" is irrelevant. The question is whether their breach of the social contract was effective, or not.
And you'll notice nobody has disagreed with you on this point.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
I love you FlyingCow and I'm gonna LET YOU FINISH. But Rosa Parks made the greatest act of passive resistance of ALL TIME.

Unless you count Claudette Colvin.
I think it's pretty obvious from my comment that I DONT. [Wink]
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
My problem with the BLM/Bernie mike incident is that I have no idea what their message was (besides generically something about Black Lives Mattering). I know they interrupted Bernie and people consider it rude. Ditto with the highway stunt.

Apparently, black lives also matter. And if you take that another step, and suggest that all lives, at the end of the day, really do matter, then people get mad and talk about "privilege."

So the message becomes: "don't be a part of this conversation."

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:

And so law-abiding citizens who have never experienced the police abusing power because they have lived law abiding lives in boring suburbia and don't see the privileges they get from their skin color find it upsetting to see an institution that only does good in their eyes could be corrupt.

See, I do actually see this as the only realistic aim of BLM. Opening white people's eyes to systemic racism is a doable thing. It's a real problem to solve. The problem with even the name of Black Lives Matter is that it suggests, in a way, that if you already subscribe to the notion that black lives do, in fact, matter, then you aren't really a part of a greater problem. You're off the hook.

It should really be something more aimed at educating people about a systemic ill, rather than a moral absolute like lives mattering. Nobody can argue with "black lives matter," but the same person who will naturally react positively to that message will still not apply it to the real systemic issues being tackled here.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FlyingCow:


Orincoro noted that comparisons to the actions of the civil rights movement were a reach. I disagreed. When a voice is not being heard, it is sometimes necessarily to breach the social contract (be rude) - whether that is by sitting somewhere you are not allowed, or speaking somewhere you are not allowed.

Eh, no. They are allowed to organize public events and draw their own crowds. There was no legal or practical barrier to that. They just didn't do it.

They may not be allowed to speak at someone else's event, which that person has organized and paid for, and advertised, and drawn crowds to, but that person who did all the organizing has a reasonable expectation of being allowed to run that event themselves. The mic at a campaign event is not public property- what they did was not defensible simply on the grounds that their exclusion was somehow unfair to them. It was perfectly fair.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FlyingCow
Member
Member # 2150

 - posted      Profile for FlyingCow   Email FlyingCow         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ahh... I see now. Got it.

No, I don't think they weren't allowed to speak because they were black. I think they weren't allowed to speak at that rally because they weren't on the list of speakers.

That's not what I meant by not having their voices heard.

The BLM movement was born of recent incidents, but the sentiment of "the lives of black people matter less in the eyes of the law" is much older than that. And people have spoken out about it before, but have been largely ignored - for years on end.

You can plan your own rally - but your voice will not be heard by the people who were at the Bernie Sanders rally. And that's a potentially valuable audience for the BLM movement, because they are largely progressive-minded people (or those open to more progressive ideas for the country).

Interrupting the Bernie Sanders rally gave them a platform to speak to a larger audience (and even got national attention), which is far more than they would have been able to accomplish on their own.

So, I don't disagree with their tactics - who cares if they were rude? They took an opportunity to give voice to something they felt had been ignored in the campaign process to that point.... and it was effective in that both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton pivoted their campaign messages because of it.

They took it upon themselves to breach the social contract and draw a spotlight to a problem. They didn't risk getting beaten or worse (as they would have 50 years ago), but they also didn't sit quietly in their neatly defined box of "you can have your own rally where you can talk about what you want.... and none of us will be there".

My only quibble is that they probably held the stage a little longer than was necessary (until after the headliner had left the event), which brought them more bad PR than they would have otherwise drawn and potentially lost them the opportunity to engage with the candidate directly after the event.

And to Orincoro - bringing the concept of "fair" to people whose very argument is "he system is inherently unfair" isn't useful. "Let them organize their own event that draws a similar crowd of people" isn't far away from "let them eat cake."

Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think we're more or less on the same page now.

To be clear, my main objection is the comparison between or equivocation of the specific civil disobedience of riding on the front of a bus/sitting on a lunch counter to the seizing of the microphone. They're vastly different: the first one is the direct disobedience of an unjust law or custom to highlight the injustice of that law. The second is mostly or entirely unrelated to the practices or concepts they're protesting.

And in that the first may be considered rude, it's considered rude because of the preexisting injustice. Whereas even in a hypothetically perfectly just society, disrupting an event like the second would still be just as rude.

So they're really, really not similar in that context.

What they do have in common is similar goals and (hopefully) similar outcomes, and you'll see I agree with you that their rudeness in doing so is unrelated to whether or not it was a good or effective thing to do.

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why can't seizing the microphone be todays sitting in the front?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DB explained the difference pretty well:

quote:
They're vastly different: the first one is the direct disobedience of an unjust law or custom to highlight the injustice of that law. The second is mostly or entirely unrelated to the practices or concepts they're protesting.

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Right. And the news about BLM at Bernie was presented as "BLM now protesting Bernie. They are idiots because Bernie is the candidate who best represents their views".
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
Right. And the news about BLM at Bernie was presented as "BLM now protesting Bernie. They are idiots because Bernie is the candidate who best represents their views".

I wonder if those people would have viewed their tactics more favorably if they interrupted a Republican candidate's rally.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
DB explained the difference pretty well:

quote:
They're vastly different: the first one is the direct disobedience of an unjust law or custom to highlight the injustice of that law. The second is mostly or entirely unrelated to the practices or concepts they're protesting.

I'm not saying they're not different.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Boy
Member
Member # 4284

 - posted      Profile for Jon Boy           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But you are saying "Why can't they be the same?"
Posts: 9944 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Why aren't these actions considered to be equivalent?"

"Because they're different, not only in their objective, but also in their justification, methodology, and desired result."

"I'm not saying they're not different."

...then what are you saying, exactly?

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
Right. And the news about BLM at Bernie was presented as "BLM now protesting Bernie. They are idiots because Bernie is the candidate who best represents their views".

I wonder if those people would have viewed their tactics more favorably if they interrupted a Republican candidate's rally.
Of course. As a happy left winger, I am more than willing to admit my side isn't apt to be fair when someone they don't like is involved (you wouldn't believe the fights I get into about that one). I will admit that I am not versed enough in the giant GOP field to know *which* candidates have made unfortunate statements about police brutality, but I am sure someone has and it would be correct for BLM to show up to remind everyone that this person's ideals are from the 50s (they sure are when it comes to women's health care, sheesh). If not, there is always Trump who is certainly racist toward Latinos, and it is probably the tip of the ice berg.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FlyingCow
Member
Member # 2150

 - posted      Profile for FlyingCow   Email FlyingCow         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
And in that the first may be considered rude, it's considered rude because of the preexisting injustice. Whereas even in a hypothetically perfectly just society, disrupting an event like the second would still be just as rude.

So they're really, really not similar in that context.

There are plenty of contexts in which they are not similar - but that doesn't preclude contexts in which they are similar.

(and, as an aside, we don't have any perfectly just societies, or spherical cows for that matter)

A more apt comparison might be the sit in, which are by their very nature disruptive - essentially taking up space in a place where the protesters are not supposed to be, in order to draw attention to a cause.

During the Civil Rights movement, these were usually centered around lunch counters - places protesters were not supposed to be due to segregation - but the sit in concept is not limited to that, and expanded during the Vietnam War to include disruptions of all types.

Disrupting an event (or speaker) to bring attention to a message isn't anything new - it's become a pretty standard protest strategy.

In that context, a line can be drawn from those participating in sit-ins during the 1960s at lunch counters and the BLM protesters who took the mic at the Bernie Sanders event. Attention through disruption; forcing a voice to be heard that is otherwise easy to ignore.

Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Disrupting an event (or speaker) to bring attention to a message isn't anything new - it's become a pretty standard protest strategy.
It should be noted that this has happened in inverse correlation to the effectiveness of political protest as a strategy.
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Much of this article is pretty good. There's a middle section where he wildly exaggerates the power and malice of modern progressives*, but if you can ignore that, otherwise pretty good. It finishes pretty strong (last six paragraphs) even though it lacks pragmatic ideas about how to solve political polarization.

http://www.rhinotimes.com/Content/Default/Columns/Article/Uncle-Orson-Reviews-Everything-Oct-29/-3/7/727

*and makes assured claims about various dire downsides of any policy they've managed to implement, you know, like he does

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Boy
Member
Member # 4284

 - posted      Profile for Jon Boy           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Eh, I couldn't get past "if thereís one thing the Left cannot tolerate today, itís other peopleís liberty."
Posts: 9944 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm actually intrigued by how much insight you can get into Card's personal philosophies if you think of him as someone embittered against social leftists but who reveres (while still fundamentally misunderstanding several positions of) Daniel Moynihan.
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It reads like Mr. Card admired Progressives until they started helping people other than straight white men.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
Eh, I couldn't get past "if thereís one thing the Left cannot tolerate today, itís other peopleís liberty."

I'd recommend finishing it if you can. He makes some pretty astute observations. I wish more people knew the history of labor in this country.

On our way back from Texas, Katherine and I drove by Trinidad Colorado, not even realizing it was the site of the Ludlow Massacre.

That was a watershed moment in labor relations, and as much as I love learning about unionization and how they operated here in the US, I didn't know so much of that incident.

Posts: 1171 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
It reads like Mr. Card admired Progressives until they started helping people other than straight white men.

That's not an accurate characterization of what he wrote at all.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 37 pages: 1  2  3  ...  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  ...  35  36  37   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Codeô is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2