I've never even thought of disenfranchisement. Had to google it. The gulf between poor and the middle class. Not only income or economic wealth. There are so many people f'ed in that/(sorry, apparently your) country.
Protests following the killing of George Floyd
- Thread starter Abizzz
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I've never even thought of disenfranchisement. Had to google it. The gulf between poor and the middle class. Not only income or economic wealth. There are so many people f'ed in that/(sorry, apparently your) country.
Started writing a post in another forum but I figured it could be better posted in here. I'm trying to explain my viewpoint on these sort of debates, both in here and in general and why I believe it turns sour so quickly, and what can be done about it.
Ultimately I think the hostility in the discourse comes down to a lot of us lacking the ability distinguish from those new to the topic and those just in there to troll or spout their awful views.
That and the "bad" people are so good at imitating the ignorant and misinformed and use that to create a further divide, and over time a lot of us try to skip an important step for some reason to the type of conversation that will reveal those who geniunely hold horrible views. We still often enough are wrong in our assumptions.
Africanspur, Sara & Villain are just three of the many people I think have shown an incredible amount of both restraint and patience with those who could be in need of a proper conversation, not just in this thread but on these topics in general.
In my experience the tone in my head changes immediately if the people i converse with have had it explained and I see them picking at a small portions without asking questions towards or acknowledging the overarching point initially raised. At that point I assume they are being disengenous due to them acting in a way that makes them seem uninterested in understanding and more like they are looking for an argument.
I want so badly to have the patience to give everyone the benefit of the doubt because every ignorant or misinformed individual deserves that benefit and effort, and being ignorant or misinformed is not a crime. I wouldn't be shocked if i look back on my own views on this a few years later and think back at how daft I was being, one way or the other.
Mind you that I think there is most often more than one viable viewpoint, but not all viewpoints should be debated on equal terms.
The comic strip in the spoiler to me says that we can have a debate over a lot of topics, come to a common ground or an understanding that we simply see things too differently and accept that we both want the world to improve but we believe that it is best done in different ways.
For example i think some criticism of holding a in-person protests during the pandemic could be valid. I also from what I've seen, agree with criticism about the protest not seeming to have any clear short term objectives for how to improve the situation to a point where order is assumed and calmer discussions could and should be had.
I accept that there can be confusion and mixed emotions when new terms people don't fully understand or feel are made that way to make you feel uncomfortable are used.
Terms like white guilt & white privilege might seem new and anti-white to some, but they have a function in conversation that simplifies having the talk for a lot of people who have way more of these conversation than most of us will ever have. Those of us who use them could absolutely be better at explaining them when someone takes offense, but it shouldn't derail the topic to the extent that it often does.
Normally when we read a word we don't understand we either look it up or ask the people who use the word to explain the meaning of it to us, then we accept that and move on.
You can debate if the economic systems in place hold people of color down and discuss the findings in a civil way whether you believe that is down to systemic racism or class wars, or a mix.
We can debate whether there is legitimacy in arguments that says organisations like the KKK have infiltrated the police to hold down people of color, or that the police institution in itself has long lasting policies that affect people of color disproportionally.
These sort of things can be debated because you can put forward evidence to support or disprove them, and if you find yourselves agreeing on the premise you can still debate solutions from different points of views.
What I don't believe I and many others can accept is viewpoints that try to diminish the severity or importance of debating and sorting the issues that are initially raised when they are affecting so many people over such a long time.
All lives matter for example was started as a counter-protest to deafen out black lives matter, which was started to put focus on and change the perceived disproportional violence police commit towards people of color. All lives do of course matter, but black lives matter isn't called "only black lives matter", or try to communicate that there is only injustice towards people of color. To start out with a premise like that is either being ignorant at the problem being addressed or being misinformed at the use of all lives matter. We shouldn't be accepting the use of comments like all lives matter because our common ground will have less focus on debating and sorting out the problem black lives matter is trying to communicate, but as before I will agree that we can be better at explaining why instead of letting our emotions take over or skip the important step of figuring out if someone is genuine or disingenuous.
We can of course agree that not nearly all people who write all lives matter means to derail the topic, but that is how it will be taken because that is how it is used by the bad 3rd party in the world wide conversation, and it portrays the black lives matter movement as if people that support it doesn't believe all lives matter.
"Black on black crime" is another that is used to change the topic of discussion instead of addressing the issues raised.
Ultimately I think the hostility in the discourse comes down to a lot of us lacking the ability distinguish from those new to the topic and those just in there to troll or spout their awful views.
That and the "bad" people are so good at imitating the ignorant and misinformed and use that to create a further divide, and over time a lot of us try to skip an important step for some reason to the type of conversation that will reveal those who geniunely hold horrible views. We still often enough are wrong in our assumptions.
Africanspur, Sara & Villain are just three of the many people I think have shown an incredible amount of both restraint and patience with those who could be in need of a proper conversation, not just in this thread but on these topics in general.
In my experience the tone in my head changes immediately if the people i converse with have had it explained and I see them picking at a small portions without asking questions towards or acknowledging the overarching point initially raised. At that point I assume they are being disengenous due to them acting in a way that makes them seem uninterested in understanding and more like they are looking for an argument.
I want so badly to have the patience to give everyone the benefit of the doubt because every ignorant or misinformed individual deserves that benefit and effort, and being ignorant or misinformed is not a crime. I wouldn't be shocked if i look back on my own views on this a few years later and think back at how daft I was being, one way or the other.
Mind you that I think there is most often more than one viable viewpoint, but not all viewpoints should be debated on equal terms.
For example i think some criticism of holding a in-person protests during the pandemic could be valid. I also from what I've seen, agree with criticism about the protest not seeming to have any clear short term objectives for how to improve the situation to a point where order is assumed and calmer discussions could and should be had.
I accept that there can be confusion and mixed emotions when new terms people don't fully understand or feel are made that way to make you feel uncomfortable are used.
Terms like white guilt & white privilege might seem new and anti-white to some, but they have a function in conversation that simplifies having the talk for a lot of people who have way more of these conversation than most of us will ever have. Those of us who use them could absolutely be better at explaining them when someone takes offense, but it shouldn't derail the topic to the extent that it often does.
Normally when we read a word we don't understand we either look it up or ask the people who use the word to explain the meaning of it to us, then we accept that and move on.
You can debate if the economic systems in place hold people of color down and discuss the findings in a civil way whether you believe that is down to systemic racism or class wars, or a mix.
We can debate whether there is legitimacy in arguments that says organisations like the KKK have infiltrated the police to hold down people of color, or that the police institution in itself has long lasting policies that affect people of color disproportionally.
These sort of things can be debated because you can put forward evidence to support or disprove them, and if you find yourselves agreeing on the premise you can still debate solutions from different points of views.
What I don't believe I and many others can accept is viewpoints that try to diminish the severity or importance of debating and sorting the issues that are initially raised when they are affecting so many people over such a long time.
All lives matter for example was started as a counter-protest to deafen out black lives matter, which was started to put focus on and change the perceived disproportional violence police commit towards people of color. All lives do of course matter, but black lives matter isn't called "only black lives matter", or try to communicate that there is only injustice towards people of color. To start out with a premise like that is either being ignorant at the problem being addressed or being misinformed at the use of all lives matter. We shouldn't be accepting the use of comments like all lives matter because our common ground will have less focus on debating and sorting out the problem black lives matter is trying to communicate, but as before I will agree that we can be better at explaining why instead of letting our emotions take over or skip the important step of figuring out if someone is genuine or disingenuous.
We can of course agree that not nearly all people who write all lives matter means to derail the topic, but that is how it will be taken because that is how it is used by the bad 3rd party in the world wide conversation, and it portrays the black lives matter movement as if people that support it doesn't believe all lives matter.
"Black on black crime" is another that is used to change the topic of discussion instead of addressing the issues raised.
Last edited:
I hope the guy he carried out - and all his friends and family - do the right thing and give this guy the praise and thanks he deserves.
Great post Oddie.Started writing a post in another forum but I figured it could be better posted in here. I'm trying to explain my viewpoint on these sort of debates, both in here and in general and why I believe it turns sour so quickly, and what can be done about it.
Ultimately I think the hostility in the discourse comes down to a lot of us lacking the ability distinguish from those new to the topic and those just in there to troll or spout their awful views.
That and the "bad" people are so good at imitating the ignorant and misinformed and use that to create a further divide, and over time a lot of us try to skip an important step for some reason to the type of conversation that will reveal those who geniunely hold horrible views. We still often enough are wrong in our assumptions.
Africanspur, Sara & Villain are just three of the many people I think have shown an incredible amount of both restraint and patience with those who could be in need of a proper conversation, not just in this thread but on these topics in general.
In my experience the tone in my head changes immediately if the people i converse with have had it explained and I see them picking at a small portions without asking questions towards or acknowledging the overarching point initially raised. At that point I assume they are being disengenous due to them acting in a way that makes them seem uninterested in understanding and more like they are looking for an argument.
I want so badly to have the patience to give everyone the benefit of the doubt because every ignorant or misinformed individual deserves that benefit and effort, and being ignorant or misinformed is not a crime. I wouldn't be shocked if i look back on my own views on this a few years later and think back at how daft I was being, one way or the other.
Mind you that I think there is most often more than one viable viewpoint, but not all viewpoints should be debated on equal terms.
The comic strip in the spoiler to me says that we can have a debate over a lot of topics, come to a common ground or an understanding that we simply see things too differently and accept that we both want the world to improve but we believe that it is best done in different ways.
For example i think some criticism of holding a in-person protests during the pandemic could be valid. I also from what I've seen, agree with criticism about the protest not seeming to have any clear short term objectives for how to improve the situation to a point where order is assumed and calmer discussions could and should be had.
I accept that there can be confusion and mixed emotions when new terms people don't fully understand or feel are made that way to make you feel uncomfortable are used.
Terms like white guilt & white privilege might seem new and anti-white to some, but they have a function in conversation that simplifies having the talk for a lot of people who have way more of these conversation than most of us will ever have. Those of us who use them could absolutely be better at explaining them when someone takes offense, but it shouldn't derail the topic to the extent that it often does.
Normally when we read a word we don't understand we either look it up or ask the people who use the word to explain the meaning of it to us, then we accept that and move on.
You can debate if the economic systems in place hold people of color down and discuss the findings in a civil way whether you believe that is down to systemic racism or class wars, or a mix.
We can debate whether there is legitimacy in arguments that says organisations like the KKK have infiltrated the police to hold down people of color, or that the police institution in itself has long lasting policies that affect people of color disproportionally.
These sort of things can be debated because you can put forward evidence to support or disprove them, and if you find yourselves agreeing on the premise you can still debate solutions from different points of views.
What I don't believe I and many others can accept is viewpoints that try to diminish the severity or importance of debating and sorting the issues that are initially raised when they are affecting so many people over such a long time.
All lives matter for example was started as a counter-protest to deafen out black lives matter, which was started to put focus on and change the perceived disproportional violence police commit towards people of color. All lives do of course matter, but black lives matter isn't called "only black lives matter", or try to communicate that there is only injustice towards people of color. To start out with a premise like that is either being ignorant at the problem being addressed or being misinformed at the use of all lives matter. We shouldn't be accepting the use of comments like all lives matter because our common ground will have less focus on debating and sorting out the problem black lives matter is trying to communicate, but as before I will agree that we can be better at explaining why instead of letting our emotions take over or skip the important step of figuring out if someone is genuine or disingenuous.
We can of course agree that not nearly all people who write all lives matter means to derail the topic, but that is how it will be taken because that is how it is used by the bad 3rd party in the world wide conversation, and it portrays the black lives matter movement as if people that support it doesn't believe all lives matter.
"Black on black crime" is another that is used to change the topic of discussion instead of addressing the issues raised.
I don't think it helps that people ignore what they both accept but disagree quite vehemently over assumptions on threads in the CE.
Thank you @oates.
I wouldn't be too surprised if we're like that In other forums as well, although CE seems to have it easier with turning us on each other in a nasty way quickly.
I also don't think it helps that the media survives on news that make us react negatively, and the political leaders being all too happy with dividing us into deplorables and people with them.
I wouldn't be too surprised if we're like that In other forums as well, although CE seems to have it easier with turning us on each other in a nasty way quickly.
I also don't think it helps that the media survives on news that make us react negatively, and the political leaders being all too happy with dividing us into deplorables and people with them.
Surprised this hasn't been posted throughout this whole thread. (Unless I've missed it)
Explains really well the problems both sides have simply understanding each other.
Why don't they stay out of it.
Who’d want to be a cop in any poor area of the USA where guns are the norm. Race doesn’t matter when it comes to pulling a weapon on a cop. I fully understand why the Police are on edge. Some of the are just cnuts and shouldn’t be in any of position of authority and should be weeded out of the force. But that will take time and support for whistle blowers.
For all the perceived danger is there a really big number of cops being killed by criminals?
From what i gather on pop culture killing cops is a big no no all over the world. Bad for business.
If I'm a cop what made me feel brave should be the reality of having the biggest baddest organization behind me, not how big my gun is.
Cop is like a mafia made men, everyone can kill em but nobody would and could getaway with it.
From what i gather on pop culture killing cops is a big no no all over the world. Bad for business.
If I'm a cop what made me feel brave should be the reality of having the biggest baddest organization behind me, not how big my gun is.
Cop is like a mafia made men, everyone can kill em but nobody would and could getaway with it.
I do think there needs to be a dual approach - if people want a demilitarized police then it would seem logical that civilians should not be able to buy (practically) military weapons
that said if the school shootings have not been enough to convince the USA its necessary to disarm (as happened in the UK and Australia) then im not sure anything will and whilst people can buy AR15's its logical the police are going to have at least comparable firepower
Its a shit show basically and Im so glad i left the states years ago
And yet, driver workers/delivery drivers have a more dangerous job than police with even worse pay.
I don't like this general point. Delivery drivers don't fear for their life everytime they make a delivery. Cops in the US are probably always wondering if the perp is armed or not whatever the interaction.
I don't think I'll ever believe the US will give up their guns, irrespective of what the general public thinks or the Amendment states, or what murderous atrocities are committed with them. It is a multi-multi-billion dollar industry. That's the bottom line. Money > life is proven time and time again, so unless there is recompense, the status quo will remain.
If you think of how much money guns bring in to the coffers of a multitude of industries (the manufacture chains) directly, and the multitude of beneficiaries off the back of shootings (law, police, jails, hospitals, funeral parlours etc. etc.) and the government from the tax off all of the aforementioned, the notion of change is pleasant idealism with absolutely no grounds in reality.
If you think of how much money guns bring in to the coffers of a multitude of industries (the manufacture chains) directly, and the multitude of beneficiaries off the back of shootings (law, police, jails, hospitals, funeral parlours etc. etc.) and the government from the tax off all of the aforementioned, the notion of change is pleasant idealism with absolutely no grounds in reality.
Coleman on the situation we're in regarding racism, police, etc. Listening to him one wouldn't belive him to be only 24.
Well worth a listen whatever "side" one takes on these matters
I don't understand. What are you trying to say?
Johnson’s racial inequality commission written on ‘back of a fag packet’ says Lammy
Exactly. If the delivery driver deaths were mainly due to being shot by the people they’re delivering to I reckon we’d all find them a hell of a lot more suspicious and less friendly when we answer the door!
Against my better judgement I did read these. The first one in particular.
He starts off with pointing out that lynchings have mostly been eliminated and that should be celebrated.
He then looks at the disparities between African American descendants of slaves, and immigrant Africans from the Caribbean/Africa post Jim Crow, and uses that to imply the differences are due to culture. Let's ignore that most immigrants are the cream of the crop of their places of origin and pass that along to their children. Let's ignore that said recent immigrants, while still subject to overt racism, don't have do deal with the ongoing impact of 400 years of slavery and Jim Crow till today.
He throws in a comment about Obama telling black people to be better parents. Let's ignore that the president at the time stupidly made this comment at Morehouse University to a group of black men graduates, who were obviously doing something right up to that point. Let's also ignore the fact that actual data shows that a white man with no degree has a better chance of getting a job than a black man with a degree.
You know how the Republicans like to think their side of climate change denialism is intellectually equivalent to the other side that believes climate change is real and it is driven by human activity? You, and Coleman and John are Republicans. Nice try with the "both sides" trick though.
Guardian said:
Lovely
I'm a coward and it's late, so don't dare say much here. But, overt racism?
Is quit possible you're right about the last point there. I don't know. Got a link?
You dismissing me is fine. I'm in no way exceptional. Dismissing Coleman and McWhorter goes to show reason is out the window on this one. Btw, just saying "FU" would've saved you typing all that out
Half the civilian guns in the hands of just 50 million Americans, and they live in poverty under a tyrannical government.
Ignoring that... rates of black gun ownership are low. White males are far more likely to own and carry a gun... but never seem to get dead as much.
Priti Patel calls Jeremy Corbyn's politics 'racist' in House of Commons
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ir-starmer-house-commons-labour-a9567256.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ir-starmer-house-commons-labour-a9567256.html
Dismissing stuff from people you agree with means reason is out of the window, brilliant.
Yeah, pardon me for being non-plussed at the idea of black people not being lynched by white mobs anymore. Police still lynch, but I mean, you take what you can get right?
Don't be scared.
Yeah. As in, open racism.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html
Nah I wanted to give you and John and Coleman the benefit of the doubt. It was wasted on them for sure but maybe you aren't beyond saving
feck's sake, did she not read Niall's post?? He bloody stickied it and everything.
Stick her back in the newbies.
Do the current government actually have anyone in their ranks who wouldn't be unsuitable? Reese Mogg probably only realised black people exist last weekend.
Although to be fair the first sentence can basically apply to anything this current government is supposed to do.
It's a crazy amount. Tyrannical, really? Belive you're right on the black/white gun ownership. Don't understand the last part.
I must have misunderstood. Did I misread him? Apologies if so.
I believe there is data that supports the notion that more whites Americans are killed in police interactions than blacks, but that's an overall number. My understanding is that on a per capita basis it swings negatively in favour of African Americans.
That behind a paywall, right? Take a look tomorrow/another day
Rado is questioning the logic of reason being "out the window" just because someone dismisses two people you happen to agree with.
Ha, yeah. I misread RadoN it looks like. It was more the pseudo republican comparison that led to that remark
File under “failed to read the room”: one of the best college football players in the nation is boycotting the program because the Head Coach publicly supports OAN. The guy has a mullet, so I guess it’s not a surprise he’s tone deaf on this.