ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd November 2017, 02:05 PM   #401
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,519
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Asians being so successful in the US sure puts a dent in the theory that the US is systematically pro-white.
There was a time when Irish, Italian, polish and others didn't count as white and they faced severe discrimination.

It's great that more people are entering the privileged classy, but you can't choose to look at them selectively and apply your observations to those who are not privileged that way.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2017, 02:10 PM   #402
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,688
A little known fact about race relations in America: White people used to own black people. (Seriously. Google it.)

The shameful legacy of that fact might be the reason discussions about racial disparities tend to focus on white vs black.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2017, 02:17 PM   #403
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,688
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
Black's are part of "society" so to make a blanket indictment that society provides a path to privilege for whites, is a bit over-the-top.
That same "society" thinks it's cool to honor those who fought a war to keep black people enslaved, so yeah, your "over the top" accusation might be a bit over the top.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2017, 02:23 PM   #404
sir drinks-a-lot
Master Poster
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 2,995
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
A little known fact about race relations in America: White people used to own black people. (Seriously. Google it.)
That's a very well known fact about race relations in America. It's brought up over and over.

A couple of little known facts are that Black people used to own black people. Google that! The same goes for native Americans. Slave owners!
__________________
I drink to the general joy o' th' whole table. --William Shakespeare
sir drinks-a-lot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2017, 03:20 PM   #405
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,420
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
There was a time when Irish, Italian, polish and others didn't count as white and they faced severe discrimination.

It's great that more people are entering the privileged classy, but you can't choose to look at them selectively and apply your observations to those who are not privileged that way.
I'm not sure why that was directed at me. What are you saying, exactly?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2017, 05:50 PM   #406
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,688
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
That's a very well known fact about race relations in America. It's brought up over and over.
I know, right? People should just stop bringing up slavery all the time.

Unless of course it's in the form of monuments in public spaces honoring those who fought a war to preserve it. Then it's fine. We should celebrate that. But don't talk about what the monuments represent. That's boring. No questions. No discussion. Just monuments. Enjoy the monuments. In silence. Total silence.

Quote:
A couple of little known facts are that Black people used to own black people. Google that! The same goes for native Americans. Slave owners!
I'm sure there's a thread somewhere on the internet in which that information might be relevant. Good luck finding it!

Last edited by johnny karate; 2nd November 2017 at 05:51 PM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 05:15 AM   #407
Thermal
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,042
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
A little known fact about race relations in America: White people used to own black people. (Seriously. Google it.)

The shameful legacy of that fact might be the reason discussions about racial disparities tend to focus on white vs black.
That makes sense from the black perspective, but not so much from a lot of the white perspective. A lot of whites (the vast majority?) had no slave holding ancestors. Should whites who's ancestors came over during the immigrant waves or were otherwise not descendants of slavers assume this shameful legacy?
__________________

Previously known as MostlyDead. Feeling better now.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 05:28 AM   #408
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,688
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
That makes sense from the black perspective, but not so much from a lot of the white perspective. A lot of whites (the vast majority?) had no slave holding ancestors. Should whites who's ancestors came over during the immigrant waves or were otherwise not descendants of slavers assume this shameful legacy?
No, but they should at least acknowledge it.

But that's not really my point. My point was to address the question of why most examinations of race relations in this country are through the lens of white vs black.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 05:41 AM   #409
Thermal
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,042
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
No, but they should at least acknowledge it.

But that's not really my point. My point was to address the question of why most examinations of race relations in this country are through the lens of white vs black.
I think it is the point. A white immigrant/non-slaver descendant can acknowledge that slavery happened. But it has nothing to do (from their perspective) with race relations today. I think that brings a lot of 'why the hell are you hanging this on me?' vibes to a modern discussion of racism. I think it is harmful to the discussion about race relations.

eta: the issues with race today, and they are very real, should not be viewed as slavery-centric. That casts all whites as the bad guys, which is not likely to result in any healthy discussion or healing.
__________________

Previously known as MostlyDead. Feeling better now.

Last edited by Thermal; 3rd November 2017 at 05:49 AM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 06:06 AM   #410
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,688
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I think it is the point. A white immigrant/non-slaver descendant can acknowledge that slavery happened. But it has nothing to do (from their perspective) with race relations today. I think that brings a lot of 'why the hell are you hanging this on me?' vibes to a modern discussion of racism. I think it is harmful to the discussion about race relations.

eta: the issues with race today, and they are very real, should not be viewed as slavery-centric. That casts all whites as the bad guys, which is not likely to result in any healthy discussion or healing.
Well, first of all, I don't think you get to tell me what my point is, but thanks anyway.

And secondly, something else that might be holding back healthy discussion and healing: The knee-jerk white person defensiveness whenever slavery or racism is brought up.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 06:21 AM   #411
MinnesotaBrant
Illuminator
 
MinnesotaBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,417
I remember accidently walking into a "white" culture group thinking it was the gaming group, left immediately, and was later asked to leave the campus. I remember this very little group made the papers and the argument was, whites have no culture thus no need for the group. I think that I may have been discriminated against by this college by being asked to leave but that's neither hear nor there. They covered up a gang rape around that time too. I think the purpose of free speech on campus is to find out what you say so they can put it in a file about you whatever race you are; for good or bad.
__________________
Formerly known as MNBrant.

Last edited by MinnesotaBrant; 3rd November 2017 at 06:26 AM.
MinnesotaBrant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 06:27 AM   #412
Thermal
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,042
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Well, first of all, I don't think you get to tell me what my point is, but thanks anyway.
It's not your personal point, it is THE point of your claim, and a common one.

Quote:
And secondly, something else that might be holding back healthy discussion and healing: The knee-jerk white person defensiveness whenever slavery or racism is brought up.
Let's not blur the line between slavery and racism, they are largely different subjects. When slavery is brought up in a discussion that is not historical, say for instance in a talk about modern race relations, is it fair to recognize it as a way to cast whites in the role of the bad guys, or the root of the problems? If so, is it fair for whites to want to quickly stop that mischaracterization?
__________________

Previously known as MostlyDead. Feeling better now.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 11:26 AM   #413
sir drinks-a-lot
Master Poster
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 2,995
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I know, right? People should just stop bringing up slavery all the time.
Probably. It's not like there's anyone that doesn't know it happened. When's the last time you lectured a Native American about the fact that they owned slaves?
__________________
I drink to the general joy o' th' whole table. --William Shakespeare
sir drinks-a-lot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 11:30 AM   #414
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28,255
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
American racism is complicated. That I married an Asian woman raises nary an eyebrow in Oklahoma, whereas had I married a black woman, things would be different. Interracial marriages are certainly less concerning now than they used to be, but it hasn't gone away completely in many areas.

Short answer: for the most part, Asians don't count.
The white racists use us Asians as examples of "model minorities" to further their agenda. Also, they do treat us differently than themselves or other minorities in several way. I've been told the reason I have good technical skills is because I'm Asian. I've often heard how Asian people are good because "we keep to ourselves" and don't complain about racism. The racism isn't as blatant, but it is still there. I'm, apparently, one of the good ones because I "act white."
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 04:17 PM   #415
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,688
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
It's not your personal point, it is THE point of your claim, and a common one.

Let's not blur the line between slavery and racism, they are largely different subjects. When slavery is brought up in a discussion that is not historical, say for instance in a talk about modern race relations, is it fair to recognize it as a way to cast whites in the role of the bad guys, or the root of the problems? If so, is it fair for whites to want to quickly stop that mischaracterization?
You're having a discussion with someone who made an argument that I didn't.

I'll leave the two of you to work it out.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 04:19 PM   #416
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,688
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
Probably. It's not like there's anyone that doesn't know it happened. When's the last time you lectured a Native American about the fact that they owned slaves?
I think it was right around the last time a Native American put up a monument to the Confederacy and told me I needed to respect it as part of their heritage.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 04:29 PM   #417
sir drinks-a-lot
Master Poster
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 2,995
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I think it was right around the last time a Native American put up a monument to the Confederacy and told me I needed to respect it as part of their heritage.
So...then it's not the slaves you care about so much? An interesting take, that's for sure.
__________________
I drink to the general joy o' th' whole table. --William Shakespeare
sir drinks-a-lot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 04:47 PM   #418
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,688
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
So...then it's not the slaves you care about so much? An interesting take, that's for sure.
Since the criteria you've established for caring about slaves is whether or not I've lectured Native Americans about owning slaves, and no one actually does that... kind of a lame burn.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 05:14 PM   #419
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,819
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
The white racists use us Asians as examples of "model minorities" to further their agenda. Also, they do treat us differently than themselves or other minorities in several way. I've been told the reason I have good technical skills is because I'm Asian. I've often heard how Asian people are good because "we keep to ourselves" and don't complain about racism. The racism isn't as blatant, but it is still there. I'm, apparently, one of the good ones because I "act white."
I didn't mean to imply that Asians face no racism, of course, but that the racism they face is different. As my son applies to colleges, we downplay his Asian heritage while emphasizing his mixed race background. Tricky strategy, that.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 05:27 PM   #420
sir drinks-a-lot
Master Poster
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 2,995
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Since the criteria(sic) you've established for caring about slaves is whether or not I've lectured Native Americans about owning slaves, and no one actually does that... kind of a lame burn.
No, I just think it's odd that you speak as if the shameful legacy of slavery consisted only of, as you say, white people owning black people.
__________________
I drink to the general joy o' th' whole table. --William Shakespeare
sir drinks-a-lot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 11:27 AM   #421
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,519
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I'm not sure why that was directed at me. What are you saying, exactly?
I'm saying you can't disprove racism by purposefully looking where it's not and by not looking at where it is. To talk about racism, you have to be willing to see the racism.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
That makes sense from the black perspective, but not so much from a lot of the white perspective. A lot of whites (the vast majority?) had no slave holding ancestors. Should whites who's ancestors came over during the immigrant waves or were otherwise not descendants of slavers assume this shameful legacy?
It's really not about who your personal ancestors were and more about the culture that's descended from it. You don't need to feel personal guilt and shame to do your part to put an end to the residual aspects of racism.

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
And secondly, something else that might be holding back healthy discussion and healing: The knee-jerk white person defensiveness whenever slavery or racism is brought up.
Exactly. I don't feel guilty over what my father or grandfather did, but I recognize that they participated in a system of discrimination that while not as strong today as it was in their time, still exists.

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
No, I just think it's odd that you speak as if the shameful legacy of slavery consisted only of, as you say, white people owning black people.
I think part of the reason racism is so hard to talk about is the belief that to acknowege it exists means you need to take on personal shame.

It doesn't have to be that way. Recognizing racism is the first and necessary step to ending racism. If you end up recognizing racism in yourself, you need to know that it is curable, but not if you're in denial. Putting in that work is good and virtuous, and not something you need to be ashamed of.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 11:37 AM   #422
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,519
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
That's a very well known fact about race relations in America. It's brought up over and over.

A couple of little known facts are that Black people used to own black people. Google that! The same goes for native Americans. Slave owners!
That black people and native americans participated in a system of oppression and exploitation doesn't make that system any less wrong, nor does it make racism any less wrong today.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 12:34 PM   #423
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,519
First, sorry for losing track of this. I meant to get back to it sooner.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Ok. In keeping with your assertion that they would take a path to power if it was presented, there are several types of antifa flags/symbols. Some are communist dominant, some socialist themed, and some unabashedly anarchist. How would, for instance, communist antifa reconcile the wielding of power with their largely anarchist 'membership'? I don't think it can logically happen, which is why I maintain that antifa have no recognizable political philosophy.
To answer this you need to understand there are different types of anarchists.

Some people believe that government in inherently corrupt and oppressive, and that the only way not to be oppressed is not to have a government at all. They believe any and all functions of government can be replaced by private associations, i.e. you have to subscribe to the local fire department for them to come to your house when it’s on fire, otherwise they may just let it burn while watering your subscribing neighbors’ home to make sure the fire doesn’t spread. These anarchists believe in a philosophy that begins with the rights to yourself and the product of your work, and the right to be free of any kind of coercion. They are philosophically close to Ayn Rand and Libertarianism. Politically they tend to be small government conservatives, or reject participation in government altogether.

Other anarchists approach anarchism from a different perspective. For them the society they want is so different from the society we have that they recognize nothing they can do can move us from where we are to what they want. For them, opposing the existing power structures in every way possible contributes to the demise of those power structures under the belief that the society they want can only arise in the vacuum created by the collapse of the society that is. They don’t seek advancement in the existing power structures because they see them as being temporary and unimportant.

Those anarchists that are attracted to antifa are going to be that second group, not the first. Also, these types of anarchists are so far apart, that meeting each other can result in violence.

Also, I’m perfectly aware this is a drastic simplification of the different fields of thought among anarchists, but I feel this is sufficient for the purposes of this discussion.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I am not suggesting that they are dilettantes, just that they have no objectives beyond denying bluntly nazis a platform in their communities. Their individual political philosophies are all over the map. That is why I am questioning your assertion that they would seize power if a path presented itself. They have no method or even central ideology with which to wield power, so they logically could not even do anything with it if it was handed to them. Their sole motivation is to force the nazis away, by peaceful means or (ahem) other means.
Many of them probably are dilettantes. Any movement is going to have its share of those.

There is not much reason to talk about what happens after because the results of what’s happening now is not known. I don’t think it’s coincidental that what they’re doing now in addition to confronting Nazis and denying them a platform is introducing and promoting the acceptability of violence in political advocacy.

Last edited by Mycroft; 4th November 2017 at 12:36 PM.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 08:02 PM   #424
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28,255
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I think it was right around the last time a Native American put up a monument to the Confederacy and told me I needed to respect it as part of their heritage.
Natives owning slaves is relevant today because of the oppression black people still suffer today at the hands of Native American institutions......
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 08:11 AM   #425
Thermal
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,042
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
It's really not about who your personal ancestors were and more about the culture that's descended from it. You don't need to feel personal guilt and shame to do your part to put an end to the residual aspects of racism.

Exactly. I don't feel guilty over what my father or grandfather did, but I recognize that they participated in a system of discrimination that while not as strong today as it was in their time, still exists.
What is this system or culture, specifically as it relates to slavery (both posts you comment on refer directly to this)?
__________________

Previously known as MostlyDead. Feeling better now.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 08:23 AM   #426
Thermal
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,042
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
First, sorry for losing track of this. I meant to get back to it sooner.



To answer this you need to understand there are different types of anarchists.

Some people believe that government in inherently corrupt and oppressive, and that the only way not to be oppressed is not to have a government at all. They believe any and all functions of government can be replaced by private associations, i.e. you have to subscribe to the local fire department for them to come to your house when it’s on fire, otherwise they may just let it burn while watering your subscribing neighbors’ home to make sure the fire doesn’t spread. These anarchists believe in a philosophy that begins with the rights to yourself and the product of your work, and the right to be free of any kind of coercion. They are philosophically close to Ayn Rand and Libertarianism. Politically they tend to be small government conservatives, or reject participation in government altogether.

Other anarchists approach anarchism from a different perspective. For them the society they want is so different from the society we have that they recognize nothing they can do can move us from where we are to what they want. For them, opposing the existing power structures in every way possible contributes to the demise of those power structures under the belief that the society they want can only arise in the vacuum created by the collapse of the society that is. They don’t seek advancement in the existing power structures because they see them as being temporary and unimportant.

Those anarchists that are attracted to antifa are going to be that second group, not the first. Also, these types of anarchists are so far apart, that meeting each other can result in violence.

Also, I’m perfectly aware this is a drastic simplification of the different fields of thought among anarchists, but I feel this is sufficient for the purposes of this discussion.
Yes, I know the difference between anachro-capitalists and smash-and-burn anarchists. There are several other varieties, in particular anachro-communists, that make a big showing in antifa's ranks. But I don't see where any of your above argument supports your idea that antifa would assume take power if a path presented itself. And how would either of the two types you describe reconcile power with communist antifa? How could a group with such disparate political and social philosophies take power in any meaningful way?

Quote:
Many of them probably are dilettantes. Any movement is going to have its share of those.

There is not much reason to talk about what happens after because the results of what’s happening now is not known. I don’t think it’s coincidental that what they’re doing now in addition to confronting Nazis and denying them a platform is introducing and promoting the acceptability of violence in political advocacy.
If you think they are introducing or promoting acceptability of violence (and I would further argue against this on a couple different grounds), to what end are they doing this? Are you suggesting they are preparing for revolution? And to which, of their many and sometimes irreconcilable systems?
__________________

Previously known as MostlyDead. Feeling better now.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 11:03 AM   #427
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,519
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Yes, I know the difference between anachro-capitalists and smash-and-burn anarchists. There are several other varieties, in particular anachro-communists, that make a big showing in antifa's ranks.
The individualist anarchists, which includes the anarcho-capitalists, are not the type to be attracted to antifa. The socialist anarchists are the ones who are. These include the anarcho communists you mention, who have very real ideas on what they want to see rise out of the ashes if/when the existing power structures fall.

Basically, they're anarchists until it's time not to be anarchists. When that time comes they will be communists, socialists, syndicalists...or whatever their particular flavor of anarchism leads them to be.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
But I don't see where any of your above argument supports your idea that antifa would assume take power if a path presented itself. And how would either of the two types you describe reconcile power with communist antifa? How could a group with such disparate political and social philosophies take power in any meaningful way?
You have to think of these ideologies as religion. It doesn't have to make sense for it to be believed.

How would they take power?

With violence, but only after the existing power structures that would oppose them have fallen.

How would they then resolve all their internal conflicts?

Probably with a lot more violence. As individuals they may believe they will or have developed methods of coming to consensus that respects everybody, but historically these problems have been relosolved by purges, re-education camps, and various forms of thought-control through propaganda and the punishment of dissidents.

It's like the underwear gnomes.

First step: Revolution!

Second step: ???!

Third sted: Utopia!

Remember, it's like religion. It doesn't need to make sense to be believed.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
If you think they are introducing or promoting acceptability of violence (and I would further argue against this on a couple different grounds), to what end are they doing this? Are you suggesting they are preparing for revolution? And to which, of their many and sometimes irreconcilable systems?
They can't make the changes they want by participating in the democratic process. When those systems fall, violence will be necessary to ostensibly defend themselves, but really to establish the social order they want by co-opting the resources they want, then by "defending" against those who owned it through the previously existing power structures and want them back.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 11:05 AM   #428
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,519
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
What is this system or culture, specifically as it relates to slavery (both posts you comment on refer directly to this)?
I'm not sure I understand your question, but if you start with the premise that the end of slavery didn't make black people the equal to white people and go from there, you may be able to answer it yourself.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 05:40 PM   #429
Thermal
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,042
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
The individualist anarchists, which includes the anarcho-capitalists, are not the type to be attracted to antifa. The socialist anarchists are the ones who are. These include the anarcho communists you mention, who have very real ideas on what they want to see rise out of the ashes if/when the existing power structures fall.

Basically, they're anarchists until it's time not to be anarchists. When that time comes they will be communists, socialists, syndicalists...or whatever their particular flavor of anarchism leads them to be.
Exactly my point. The differing groups are largely at odds with whatever political philosophies they endorse. When the 'time comes', antifa would not be able to do anything. One of the subsets, maybe, but not antifa per se. They are limited in focus and specialized.

You seem committed to asserting that antifa has specific political aspirations. Ok. Do you see them, acting as their umbrella collective, doing anything at all besides facing off against nazis? Did they get rowdy at President Obama or Secretary Clinton's rallys? If, as you say, they have political aspirations, they would be set on overthrowing all forms of existing government, would they not? Bu no- it is only the nazis they show up to face down. Which is what I maintain: that is all they do, as a collective.

Quote:
You have to think of these ideologies as religion. It doesn't have to make sense for it to be believed.

How would they take power?

With violence, but only after the existing power structures that would oppose them have fallen.
And what evidence is there that antifa (not some random anarchist or communist subset) has these plans for violent post-revolutionary power seizures? I see one message proclaimed by antifa: Bash the Fash. I don't see any of the alternate agendas you assert. Where would I look to find these mob-rule treatises of governing, espoused by antifa?

Quote:
How would they then resolve all their internal conflicts?

Probably with a lot more violence. As individuals they may believe they will or have developed methods of coming to consensus that respects everybody, but historically these problems have been relosolved by purges, re-education camps, and various forms of thought-control through propaganda and the punishment of dissidents.
This assumes an internal power struggle between factions that I don't think you have shown even exists.

Antifa is anti fascist, not pro-anything.

Quote:
It's like the underwear gnomes.

First step: Revolution!

Second step: ???!

Third sted: Utopia!

Remember, it's like religion. It doesn't need to make sense to be believed.
For some of the individual ideologies, sure. For nazi-punching, not so much.

Where do we hear this antifa battle cry for revolution? We don't.

Quote:
They can't make the changes they want by participating in the democratic process. When those systems fall, violence will be necessary to ostensibly defend themselves, but really to establish the social order they want by co-opting the resources they want, then by "defending" against those who owned it through the previously existing power structures and want them back.
Ok, you claim that antifa has some sort of plan for a post-revolutionary power grab, and that they will violently in-fight or something to resolve the fact that their political makeup is at odds with each other. You seem to have their hidden agenda pretty wired. Sorry, but I can't share these views, lacking any evidence that they exist. Hope we can agree to disagree.
__________________

Previously known as MostlyDead. Feeling better now.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 06:21 PM   #430
Thermal
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,042
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I'm not sure I understand your question, but if you start with the premise that the end of slavery didn't make black people the equal to white people and go from there, you may be able to answer it yourself.
My question goes back to poster johnny karate's comment that racism focuses on white v black and it's roots in slavery. I disagree. Living in a Union state with no slavers in my ancestry, slavery does not enter my thinking except as a vile practice that my country fought hard to abolish. I don't think it fuels racism today.

But Ok. Ending slavery did not confer equality upon black people. Agreed.

So: what does that have to do with a modern discussion of racism? Are you saying that whites wish for blacks to be enslaved, or resent their freedom? Just can't accept Emancipation? I think racism is now fueled by other bile, rather than being rooted in this vague 'culture and system of discrimination' based on slavery, that I hear so much about. I can sort of understand a black person saying 'hey, your complexion is similar in tone to what I can only assume was the hue of slavers from a century and a half ago that probably had nothing to do with you. So I resent you'. Sort of. But from (most of) the white perspective, it's a non-sequitur.
__________________

Previously known as MostlyDead. Feeling better now.

Last edited by Thermal; 5th November 2017 at 07:14 PM. Reason: forgot word
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 03:32 AM   #431
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,953
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
My question goes back to poster johnny karate's comment that racism focuses on white v black and it's roots in slavery. I disagree. Living in a Union state with no slavers in my ancestry, slavery does not enter my thinking except as a vile practice that my country fought hard to abolish. I don't think it fuels racism today.

But Ok. Ending slavery did not confer equality upon black people. Agreed.

So: what does that have to do with a modern discussion of racism? Are you saying that whites wish for blacks to be enslaved, or resent their freedom? Just can't accept Emancipation? I think racism is now fueled by other bile, rather than being rooted in this vague 'culture and system of discrimination' based on slavery, that I hear so much about. I can sort of understand a black person saying 'hey, your complexion is similar in tone to what I can only assume was the hue of slavers from a century and a half ago that probably had nothing to do with you. So I resent you'. Sort of. But from (most of) the white perspective, it's a non-sequitur.
I think the link to slavery is more oblique. During the Reconstruction, white people in the US were imbued by the notion that the war was a misunderstanding, and that they should unite in the knowledge that the people who fought the war were all noble. The perspective of the slaves was forgotten in this narrative. During the years since, black people have fought and won civil rights and have taken a place in society that previously belonged to poor whites. These poor whites thus experience black people as crowding them out.

During slavery, as poor as a white man could be, at least he was a free man and not a slave. Now, there's nobody for him to realistically look down upon. He's forced to either face the fact that he's on the lowest rung of society, or he projects his feelings of inadequacy on others - minorities.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 04:28 AM   #432
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,997
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Natives owning slaves is relevant today because of the oppression black people still suffer today at the hands of Native American institutions......
Well there is the whole issue of giving descendants of Cherokee slaves tribal citizenship

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.977c7f27780c

So a relatively minor group when talking about larger issues.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 05:09 AM   #433
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28,255
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post

So a relatively minor group when talking about larger issues.
I'd say extremely minor, since the Native Nations have almost no power in the USA.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 01:16 PM   #434
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,024
Free speech at public universities

Professor Geoffrey Stone wrote, "The Supreme Court has made it quite clear that public universities cannot constitutionally discipline their students for speech merely because it offends the university’s sense of decency."

More recently he wrote, "But I am a bit puzzled by contemporary conservatives who suddenly and quite vigorously defend the principle of free expression. I say “suddenly” because throughout American history it has been political conservatives who have consistently been the opponents of free speech and academic freedom. That they now energetically embrace what they have always rejected inevitably lends itself to more than a bit of skepticism."

My opinion is that the campus hard left is the greater threat to free speech on campus right now than campus conservatives are, but I defer to Professor Stone, the author of a statement on the principles of free speech for the University of Chicago, with respect to history. On the other hand, the words and actions from high government officials are potentially much more damaging to the principle of free speech than anyone on campus.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 03:18 PM   #435
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,519
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
My question goes back to poster johnny karate's comment that racism focuses on white v black and it's roots in slavery. I disagree. Living in a Union state with no slavers in my ancestry, slavery does not enter my thinking except as a vile practice that my country fought hard to abolish. I don't think it fuels racism today.
Just because something has its historical roots in slavery doesn’t mean you think of slavery each and every time you see racism. Similarly, when you think of individual rights against the government you don’t necessarily think of the Bill of Rights or the Magna Carta.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
But Ok. Ending slavery did not confer equality upon black people. Agreed.
And neither did the Civil Rights Movement 100 years later, correct?

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
So: what does that have to do with a modern discussion of racism? Are you saying that whites wish for blacks to be enslaved, or resent their freedom? Just can't accept Emancipation? I think racism is now fueled by other bile, rather than being rooted in this vague 'culture and system of discrimination' based on slavery, that I hear so much about. I can sort of understand a black person saying 'hey, your complexion is similar in tone to what I can only assume was the hue of slavers from a century and a half ago that probably had nothing to do with you. So I resent you'. Sort of. But from (most of) the white perspective, it's a non-sequitur.
Ignoring the silly straw-men, racism is fueled by seeing people of colour differently from white people (i.e. the in-group, which may contain people who were not considered white in previous decades). This same differences in perception rationalized slavery centuries ago
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 04:45 PM   #436
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,519
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Exactly my point. The differing groups are largely at odds with whatever political philosophies they endorse. When the 'time comes', antifa would not be able to do anything. One of the subsets, maybe, but not antifa per se. They are limited in focus and specialized.
Perhaps more than one of the subsets?

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
You seem committed to asserting that antifa has specific political aspirations. Ok.
Because I listen to what they say and understand the history of the movement and the symbols they use.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Do you see them, acting as their umbrella collective, doing anything at all besides facing off against nazis? Did they get rowdy at President Obama or Secretary Clinton's rallys? If, as you say, they have political aspirations, they would be set on overthrowing all forms of existing government, would they not? Bu no- it is only the nazis they show up to face down. Which is what I maintain: that is all they do, as a collective.
Which is why my statement was about what they would do if circumstances were different.

In politics you advance the ideas where you think you can make gains. That doesn’t mean you don’t have other ideas and goals, just that you limit your action to the goals you can achieve.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
And what evidence is there that antifa (not some random anarchist or communist subset) has these plans for violent post-revolutionary power seizures? I see one message proclaimed by antifa: Bash the Fash. I don't see any of the alternate agendas you assert. Where would I look to find these mob-rule treatises of governing, espoused by antifa?
What’s random about these subsets?

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
This assumes an internal power struggle between factions that I don't think you have shown even exists.
It assumes no such thing. There is potential for power struggles in the future, that doesn’t mean there is a power struggle evident now. You’re simultaneously arguing that they’re too different to cooperate and then arguing there is no evidence of their differences. You can’t have it both ways.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
For some of the individual ideologies, sure. For nazi-punching, not so much.

Where do we hear this antifa battle cry for revolution? We don't.
You don’t need to co-opt this symbolism that traces back generations to previous movements if all you want to do is punch a Nazi.

Also, who said anything about a battle cry? If you want to argue against what I said, then please stick to what I said and stop trying to walk my position to somewhere else.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Ok, you claim that antifa has some sort of plan for a post-revolutionary power grab, and that they will violently in-fight or something to resolve the fact that their political makeup is at odds with each other.
The statement I made that you’re arguing over is, “if a path to power presented itself, they would take it.” None of your re-wording and rephrasing fits that statement, thus it’s all straw-man arguments.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
You seem to have their hidden agenda pretty wired. Sorry, but I can't share these views, lacking any evidence that they exist.
Nobody is "hiding" anything when they're proudly displaying their symbols that reveal their ideologies.

Here, do some reading:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/a...rmany-cold-war

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page...tory-of-antifa

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Hope we can agree to disagree.
Sure. I’ve said a couple times now that we may not be able to reach a consensus on this.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 09:46 AM   #437
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,024
legal issues surrounding the heckler's veto

The essay at this link discusses legal issues surrounding the heckler's veto. It references an essay by someone affiliated with FIRE: "...and as Zach Greenberg of the campus-free-speech organization the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education explains on a page dedicated to this important concept, the courts have ruled that such vetoes do, in fact, violate the First Amendment, whether the disruption is merely verbal (as it was in this case) or physical..."
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 13th November 2017 at 10:32 AM. Reason: added second link
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 09:55 AM   #438
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,997
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
The essay at this link discusses legal issues surrounding the heckler's veto. It references an essay by someone affiliated with FIRE: "...and as Zach Greenberg of the campus-free-speech organization the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education explains on a page dedicated to this important concept, the courts have ruled that such vetoes do, in fact, violate the First Amendment, whether the disruption is merely verbal (as it was in this case) or physical..."
I am waiting for PBS to give him his platform as after all they are public so they are legally required to give nazis a platform, just like public colleges.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 10:38 AM   #439
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,024
Jones v. Board of Regents

Here is an interesting passage from the FIRE essay, to which I linked above: "This principle was applied to a student in Jones v. Board of Regents (1970), where the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down a university handbill ban after a student was removed from campus when threatened with violence for passing out anti-war handbills. The court stated the public university’s goal should have been 'to prevent the infringement of [the student’s] constitutional right by those bent on stifling, even by violence, the peaceful expression of ideas or views with which they disagreed.'" This example shows that freedom of speech protects those (presumably) on the political left as well as the right.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 10:42 AM   #440
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,997
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Here is an interesting passage from the FIRE essay, to which I linked above: "This principle was applied to a student in Jones v. Board of Regents (1970), where the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down a university handbill ban after a student was removed from campus when threatened with violence for passing out anti-war handbills. The court stated the public university’s goal should have been 'to prevent the infringement of [the student’s] constitutional right by those bent on stifling, even by violence, the peaceful expression of ideas or views with which they disagreed.'" This example shows that freedom of speech protects those (presumably) on the political left as well as the right.
And that was a bit different as it was a STUDENT, not an outside speaker seeking a platform. If students formed a nazi student union that would be one thing. But this does not seem to be terribly related to any of the actual students on campus.

Up next NAMBLA will be giving talks to middle schools. Public schools have to give them a platform to the audience of their choice after all.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:16 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.