Jump to content

US Politics/Elections Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 27.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • downzy

    4198

  • Dazey

    1556

  • soon

    1548

  • Georgy Zhukov

    1531

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Donald Trump just grabbed America by the pussy

Posted Images

10 minutes ago, action said:

it is adding a step to the ultimate goal of equality.

you said it yourself: ""all lives" can't matter until black lives matter."

there is something profoundly twisted by proclaiming that all lives can't matter.

who will decide "when" black lives are mattering in society, so that then we can reach the ideal state where all lives matter? the white people? the black people?

And what happens in the meantime? One skin color is better than the other?

I say therefore: all lives matter "now". We should all be treated equally. the white and the black. you are not better than me, because you have a different skin color. Regardless of skin color, you are equal. There is therefore no need to refer to a certain type of skin color in your slogan. the goal we're trying to achieve is race equality.

that the slogan "all lives matter" causes so much anger, says it enough, really.

If saying "all lives can't matter until black lives matter" is twisted, it's surely only twisted in yoir mind. 

You're saying "all lives matter", which is a great theory except for that fact that it's been proven over and over that black lives don't matter. 

So in order for "all lives" to matter, black lives have to matter. 

You can say "everyone should be treated equally" all you want, but everyone ISN'T treated equally and that's the problem. 

Here's Michael Che to hopefully help you understand better:

 

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

If saying "all lives can't matter until black lives matter" is twisted, it's surely only twisted in yoir mind. 

You're saying "all lives matter", which is a great theory except for that fact that it's been proven over and over that black lives don't matter. 

So in order for "all lives" to matter, black lives have to matter. 

You can say "everyone should be treated equally" all you want, but everyone ISN'T treated equally and that's the problem. 

Here's Michael Che to hopefully help you understand better:

 

it is proven over and over again, that black lives don't matter to a large amount of people. I don't disagree with you on this part.

when I say "all lives matter", I'm saying they "should" all matter. Not that they all matter equally in practise.

Surely, you agree with me that all lives should be equally regarded? Well then, there is nothing wrong with spreading the "idea" (not the reality) that all lives should be treated equally.

My mind isn't twisted, my mind only wishes for equality. Too bad, a lot of people aren't having any of that

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, action said:

it is adding a step to the ultimate goal of equality.

you said it yourself: ""all lives" can't matter until black lives matter."

there is something profoundly twisted by proclaiming that all lives can't matter.

who will decide "when" black lives are mattering in society, so that then we can reach the ideal state where all lives matter? the white people? the black people?

And what happens in the meantime? One skin color is better than the other?

I say therefore: all lives matter "now". We should all be treated equally. the white and the black. you are not better than me, because you have a different skin color. Regardless of skin color, you are equal. There is therefore no need to refer to a certain type of skin color in your slogan. the goal we're trying to achieve is race equality.

that the slogan "all lives matter" causes so much anger, says it enough, really.

A point is being made about a pressing issue i.e. black people getting killed on the street by coppers, ‘all lives matter’ is not troublesome as a proposition in and of itself but rather as a riposte to black lives matter because it is deemed to be detracting from the issue at hand, where was all lives matter before BLM came about?  It didn’t exist, did it?  It goes without saying that all lives matter, black lives matter is only being made a point of because it is apparent that they are not being treated as if they matter enough.  No one claiming Black Lives Matter is trying to say Black Lives Matter More Than Other Lives.

So briefly, yes, All Lives Matter Now...so taking that as a jump off point, which lives appear to be mattering the least at the moment?  Those are the ones being argued for and require standing up for.  Otherwise All Lives Matter becomes, to quote Bill Hicks, a bit of a cocksuck, doesn’t it?  Black lives make up a part of that all, so whats the problem with the slogan?  Whats the concern here, that a focus on Black lives might take us to a cultural imbalance where blacks are valued and others aren’t?  Don’t worry chief, we’re a great many miles from that.  
 

All in all it speaks to a subconcious fear of being marginalised, which further speaks to how horrific the condition of black folks must be, that entertaining the very notion (a entirely unfeasible one at that) that you might one day, in the far off distant future, find yourself in a similar position makes you want to assert the value of your life at the voices that speak for the oppressed.  Its so incredibly irrational, its like me looking at a poster for famine relief and going ‘don’t forget me, I need to be fed too’, as if focusing on relief supplies to Rwanda might one day lead to me being deprived of my daily bread.

  • Like 2
  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, action said:

it is proven over and over again, that black lives don't matter to a large amount of people. I don't disagree with you on this part.

when I say "all lives matter", I'm saying they "should" all matter. Not that they all matter equally in practise.

Surely, you agree with me that all lives should be equally regarded? Well then, there is nothing wrong with spreading the "idea" (not the reality) that all lives should be treated equally.

My mind isn't twisted, my mind only wishes for equality. Too bad, a lot of people aren't having any of that

A lot of minds wish for equality. Wishing, hoping and just saying "all lives matter" when they currently do not, does not make it a reality unfortunately. I'll leave this here for you again as I'm guessing you didn't bother watching:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

A point is being made about a pressing issue i.e. black people getting killed on the street by coppers, ‘all lives matter’ is not troublesome as a proposition in and of itself but rather as a riposte to black lives matter because it is deemed to be detracting from the issue at hand, where was all lives matter before BLM came about?  It didn’t exist, did it?  It goes without saying that all lives matter, black lives matter is only being made a point of because it is apparent that they are not being treated as if they matter enough.  No one claiming Black Lives Matter is trying to say Black Lives Matter More Than Other Lives.

So briefly, yes, All Lives Matter Now...so taking that as a jump off point, which lives appear to be mattering the least at the moment?  Those are the ones being argued for and require standing up for.  Otherwise All Lives Matter becomes, to quote Bill Hicks, a bit of a cocksuck, doesn’t it?  Black lives make up a part of that all, so whats the problem with the slogan?  Whats the concern here, that a focus on Black lives might take us to a cultural imbalance where blacks are valued and others aren’t?  Don’t worry chief, we’re a great many miles from that.  
 

All in all it speaks to a subconcious fear of being marginalised, which further speaks to how horrific the condition of black folks must be, that entertaining the very notion (a entirely unfeasible one at that) that you might one day, in the far off distant future, find yourself in a similar position makes you want to assert the value of your life at the voices that speak for the oppressed.  Its so incredibly irrational, its like me looking at a poster for famine relief and going ‘don’t forget me, I need to be fed too’, as if focusing on relief supplies to Rwanda might one day lead to me being deprived of my daily bread.

All Lives Matter isn't even a movement. It exists as opposition to the Black Lives Matter movement and for no other reason. It's the Racial equivalent of Straight Pride.

Edited by Dazey
  • Like 3
  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dazey said:

102804298_1147445122280355_8253980442768

:lol: 

Dammit, I wish there were one of these directly aimed at the US. A lot of these fit both countries but I bet you could easily fill every space with things a lot of US residents say. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RussTCB said:

Dammit, I wish there were one of these directly aimed at the US. A lot of these fit both countries but I bet you could easily fill every space with things a lot of US residents say. 

Give me a few and I'll redraw it for you. :lol: 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Dazey said:

All Lives Matter isn't even a movement. It exists as opposition to the Black Lives Matter movement and for no other reason. It's the Racial equivalent of Straight Pride.

I just meant taking it for arguments sake as a stance in relation to BLM.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Len Cnut said:

I just meant taking it for arguments sake as a stance in relation to BLM.

Oh, I wasn't correcting you. Just having a general rant. :lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Oh, I wasn't correcting you. Just having a general rant. :lol: 

No you weren’t, you were undermining me,  look at you, flinging your white privelige all over the gaff, well I’ve got news for you sonny jim, the fookin’ Raj is over, August 14th 1947 (or is it 13th?), you can’t tell me what to do now, I’m free I tells ya, free! *throws his clothes off and runs stark naked down the street* :lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dazey said:

All Lives Matter isn't even a movement. It exists as opposition to the Black Lives Matter movement and for no other reason. It's the Racial equivalent of Straight Pride.

I'll be proclaiming that all lives matter, till the end of my days.

All sexes matter, all sexualities, all races, and all religions.

there is no in between. If you take away even the slightest bit of this, the problems start.

But make no mistake. Me proclaiming this, won't make any more difference than what the "black lives matter" movement does.

Nothing will change.

We should all look in the mirror, strive to live a good life, be tolerant, and be not an asshole. If you can say to yourself (not to anyone else), that you've achieved that, then I guess you have led a good life.

A lot of people can not look in the mirror. I can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

A point is being made about a pressing issue i.e. black people getting killed on the street by coppers, ‘all lives matter’ is not troublesome as a proposition in and of itself but rather as a riposte to black lives matter because it is deemed to be detracting from the issue at hand, where was all lives matter before BLM came about?  It didn’t exist, did it?  It goes without saying that all lives matter, black lives matter is only being made a point of because it is apparent that they are not being treated as if they matter enough.  No one claiming Black Lives Matter is trying to say Black Lives Matter More Than Other Lives.

So briefly, yes, All Lives Matter Now...so taking that as a jump off point, which lives appear to be mattering the least at the moment?  Those are the ones being argued for and require standing up for.  Otherwise All Lives Matter becomes, to quote Bill Hicks, a bit of a cocksuck, doesn’t it?  Black lives make up a part of that all, so whats the problem with the slogan?  Whats the concern here, that a focus on Black lives might take us to a cultural imbalance where blacks are valued and others aren’t?  Don’t worry chief, we’re a great many miles from that.  
 

All in all it speaks to a subconcious fear of being marginalised, which further speaks to how horrific the condition of black folks must be, that entertaining the very notion (a entirely unfeasible one at that) that you might one day, in the far off distant future, find yourself in a similar position makes you want to assert the value of your life at the voices that speak for the oppressed.  Its so incredibly irrational, its like me looking at a poster for famine relief and going ‘don’t forget me, I need to be fed too’, as if focusing on relief supplies to Rwanda might one day lead to me being deprived of my daily bread.

it existed long ago, in jesus' message. another one that gets ridiculed casually for his message.

most people, on a moral level, don't arise above the state of being an animal. Most people, are selfish, unempathic, hostile and suspicious. Our everyday faces, that we use from the moment we step out of our doors, are masks. it is all just a big charade, because to our very core we are just animals.

to proclaim that everyone is equal, violates these primordial instincts, and therefore evokes a lot of anger and hate. A lot of people who proclaimed this in the past ended up with a bullet in their head.

it is never the right time to proclaim that all lives matter. At any given point in time, a horrible thing happens to various marginalised groups. Be it gay people, muslims, black people, women.... you can't go with a week without something cruel happening. At any moment in time, when you proclaim "everyone matters", someone will be bound to be offended. Does that make the message less valuable? No, it only enforces and validates the sentiment

Edited by action
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, downzy said:

Do you think it would really make a difference? 

I think people who doubt there is a problem would still take issue regardless of the name or slogan.  

Several friends and people I know who took issue or didn't understand the message four or five years ago now (for the most part) no longer take issue with the phrase since they understand its meaning.  I would have agreed five or six years ago, but at this point, if you still don't get it, the issue isn't the name or slogan but one's inability or unwillingness to see the problem.

Not to all. But to some, I think. Obviously there will always be people who have an issue with the whole movement. But to some dense people, who innocently don't get it, it surely would make a difference. And the others would have to find another way to make a fool out of themselves. Something that is not that easy and more obvious (that they are looking for something to nitpick).

  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, action said:

most people, on a moral level, don't arise above the state of being an animal. Most people, are selfish, unempathic, hostile and suspicious. Our everyday faces, that we use from the moment we step out of our doors, are masks. it is all just a big charade, because to our very core we are just animals.

to proclaim that everyone is equal, violates these primordial instincts, and therefore evokes a lot of anger and hate. A lot of people who proclaimed this in the past ended up with a bullet in their head.

it is never the right time to proclaim that all lives matter. At any given point in time, a horrible thing happens to various marginalised groups. Be it gay people, muslims, black people, women.... you can't go with a week without something cruel happening. At any moment in time, when you proclaim "everyone matters", someone will be bound to be offended. Does that make the message less valuable? No, it only enforces and validates the sentiment

I completely agree, I don’t even find what you’re saying to be in conflict with what I said actually.  Perhaps we have a detachment from certain realities that affords us the luxury of such thought.  Or perhaps this cynical worldview we share is self-fulfilling.  
 

I fear the issues of black America transcend a lot of this sort of philosophical posturing though and are a lot more urgent than all that.  Urgent in the way a policemans knee on your throat that will choke the life out of you in the next 9 minutes is urgent.

Edited by Len Cnut
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Len Cnut said:

I completely agree, I don’t even find what you’re saying to be in conflict with what I said actually.

there is no conflict. isn't that nice? I find that rather refreshing don't you think. ;)

in the end we all want the same. Though I doubt that people, who are rioting, have much good to tell us. First you see the actions (rioting and looting), then you see their message (black lives matter). The two combined leave a bad taste in my mouth.

I'm not rioting, and I'm saying that everyone is equal. Surely I should get points for not looting the local porn shop?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

 
 

I fear the issues of black America transcend a lot of this sort of philosophical posturing though and are a lot more urgent than all that.  Urgent in the way a policemans knee on your throat that will choke the life out of you in the next 9 minutes is urgent.

if urgent action is needed, it is the task of the judicial service. let's hope they do their job. Should they neglect their task, then I don't know what to do. What could we do? overrun the supreme court and install a court of respected townsfolk? We live in a state of justice. No protest can come into the place of the justice system, or you'll end up with anarchy.

So with urgent action out of the way, there is the need for a change in awareness. No small task. An endeavour of this size, has always started with the philosophers. Rather than having a sense of urgency, philosophers should sit back, and ponder in all calmness all aspects of the problem. Otherwise, you run the risk of creating new problems with your solution. You can't expect to have change tomorrow, because you need to convince the mass first. Riots wont achieve this goal. The common folk aren't very good at well structured thinking (rather, they talk in over simplified ideas formulated for example in memes), so I think we have to leave it to the philosophers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

if urgent action is needed, it is the task of the judicial service. let's hope they do their job.

Many years of this waiting have been and gone.  It took action to get black people the rights, the on paper rights, that they do have in America.

Quote

Should they neglect their task, then I don't know what to do. What could we do?

Now you're getting to the point.  Rioting is an irrational act.  People are driven to irrational acts when they are left not knowing what to do in defence of their lives, as opposed to not knowing what to do with a philosophical proposition.

Quote

We live in a state of justice. No protest can come into the place of the justice system, or you'll end up with anarchy.

When a justice system masquerades as a justice system without providing justice what do you call it?  A regime perhaps?  An immoral regime?  Perhaps a moments anarchy is what will clear the decks.  Or perhaps it'll lead to more anarchy and take everything to hell in a handbasket.  I'm not the man to answer that proposition, what I can say though is that were the injustice not there then you wouldn't have the protests.  A peoples declaring their right, to quote Malcolm X 'as a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being, in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary'.  I find that to be a whole honourable position.  If you object to the violence of anarchy and looting then you should object first to the violence of oppression and seek to eliminate that first.  The American constitution itself speaks of defence against oppressive government.  Armed defence at that.  

Quote

there is the need for a change in awareness. No small task. An endeavour of this size, has always started with the philosophers. Rather than having a sense of urgency, philosophers should sit back, and ponder in all calmness all aspects of the problem. Otherwise, you run the risk of creating new problems with your solution. You can't expect to have change tomorrow, because you need to convince the mass first. Riots wont achieve this goal. The common folk aren't very good at well structured thinking (rather, they talk in over simplified ideas formulated for example in memes), so I think we have to leave it to the philosophers.

Illustrated above is the philosophy of urgent action, philosophy is not synonymous with passivity.  

Edited by Len Cnut
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, action said:

there is no in between. If you take away even the slightest bit of this, the problems start

But no one is taking away anything, because it isn't "black lives matter more". It is just "black lives matter". This is not a zero sum game where if we accept that black lives actually matter we have to reduce the value of other people's lives. 

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...