Two months since the riots and still no national conversation

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZemD
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“System racism?”

Of course people don’t want to talk about it - seeing as it’s a myth.

Black people are treated unequally - they get affirmative action preferences in education & hiring merely because they’re black.

We can talk about those things all you like.
 
I wonder if the media coverage might be skewing perceptions of what is and what is not being discussed?
Here at CAF there has been a great deal of discussion of whether or not (and to what possible extent) systemic racism exists.
You might also try the BBC which is devoting considerable coverage to the subject of race.
 
Most people who are speaking loudly about systemic racism in America are the beneficiaries of what they themselves call “white priviledge”. They are mostly white, college educated, raised in all-white suburbs. If they are above the age of 30, they are currently living in all-white suburbs. They are burning and destroying inner city neighborhoods as a sign of protest. They are all about destroying the “system” which gives them all the benefits.
Many of the under the age of 30 crowd, temporarily pretending to be the urban proletariat, are still financed by mommy and daddy from those all-white suburbs.
And they all are feeling so proud of being anti-establishment. They want to defund the police, but not in their suburbs.
 
Last edited:
It’s an election year. And this pandemic and subsequent violent leftist outburst using the death of one random man somewhere in the US (and forgetting his name along the way) is now being used as a mafia style extortion racket by the Democratic Party:
“Nice country you have there. Would be a shame if something bad happened to it. Vote for us and we will stop this senseless violence at the snip of a finger”
Does anybody honestly believe the media will scandalize the pandemic and the BLM riots in the same way after Biden is sworn in? Nope everything will be hunky dory again in the good old US of A. Because as we all know the only problem this country has is the Bad Orange Man.
Should Trump be reelected you can expect the tantrum to continue. But at least then Trump can then send in the Feds without any more concern about his re-election prospects.
 
I wonder this myself, if Trump wins reelection will he just drop the hammer, since he can’t run again in 2024?

I really hope this doesn’t last until November though.
 
It’s called: Playing Revolution.
And I talk to some of these people. They are honest to God convinced that their cause is a just one. Despite the fact that the exact opposite is true.
People say it is a religion and it is hard to argue against it. It is indeed a religion, unfortunately it expresses itself in the worst aspects of religion. Cult mentality, collective hate for the other, violence to submit others under your belief etc.
 
Steeevyo said:
And I talk to some of these people. They are honest to God convinced that their cause is a just one. Despite the fact that the exact opposite is true.
People say it is a religion and it is hard to argue against it. It is indeed a religion, unfortunately it expresses itself in the worst aspects of religion. Cult mentality, collective hate for the other, violence to submit others under your belief e
Click to expand...
I would not call it drop the hammer:
If local and state law enforcement continues to refuse to pretect the health and safety of their own citizens the President is obligated by the very oath he has sworn to send in Federal law enforcement and restore order. So if he won reelection my guess is that state and local law enforcement will pick up again with their sworn duties because their Democratic leaders now don’t see political value in exposing their constituents to lawlessness and violence. the only reason they are allowing this now is because they think it will help them defeat Trump. Democrat governors and local mayors are violating their own oath of office right now but they don’t care because most of their constituents are liberal, unaffected by the rioting because they live in affluent safe suburbs and will vote for them again in a heartbeat. The worst thing Trump can do right now is give in to their baiting and create images where rioters end up dead at the hands of federal law enforcement.
 
Steeevyo said:
mafia style extortion racket by the Democratic Party:
“Nice country you have there. Would be a shame if something bad happened to it. Vote for us and we will stop this senseless violence at the snip of a finger”
Click to expand...
I am a little envious, because you put your finger on it. (and I wish I had thought of this :roll_eyes: :roll_eyes: 🙂
 
In Democrat’s defense: This is not something that is agreed upon in a secret meeting in Nancy Pelosi’s double fridge while they scoop 14 dollar ice cream pints. It is just the way the game of politics is played in a federal system like the United States.
 
There is a means of resolving the issue of police conduct which has appeared to be working reasonably well. It started in 2013 in a city in which the racial minorities were the majority. There are numerous reports on it; I find this one to be balanced and worthy of a read:

The City that Really Did Abolish the Police - POLITICO

As this change required agreement on both sides of the political world, it makes for an interesting study of what can be done, and what results can occur with the change. The article points out the bood and the not so good results.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think a small town in New Jersey can serve as a model for crime ridden hellholes like Chicago and Baltimore.
 
Steeevyo said:
I don’t think a small town in New Jersey can serve as a model for crime ridden hellholes like Chicago and Baltimore.
Click to expand...
Did you actually read the article? Camden was not far off the description of a hell hole.
 
Last edited:
The conversation went something like this, regarding the question of compromising:

Rhodesian: I have no desire to have middle ground on abortion…I want it illegal. I don’t want middle ground on gay marriage. I want it banned. I want them beaten.

You: Then you are part of the problem. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable, no matter which side of the artificial divide you place yourself on.

Rhodesian Son: You don’t compromise with evil.

You: Someone having different political opinions from yours doesn’t make them evil.

Me: What was happening on Epstein’s Island … abortion … rioting, terrorizing, etc. are not differences of opinion. They are evil.

You: Nowhere did I say we cannot call out bad or even evil actions. What I said was we cannot call someone evil simply for supporting the other side of a political debate.

The point seems fairly clear. Rhodesian Son is specifying evil actions. He is taking a stand against evil actions. He is saying he will not compromise with evil actions or evil laws. I’m not sure he ever called any person evil, but specified that he does not want to ‘compromise’ with evil agendas and positions. So perhaps you are the one fighting straw men.

But frankly, when have we ever looked at a person who supports evil and called them good? Do you think a good person supports evil actions?

And really, the question was about compromising. Do you compromise with evil? Do you say that babies can be killed only up to 6 months but not 9? Only up to birth but not as they’re exiting the womb? Where is the compromise?
 
Adamek said:
Most people who are speaking loudly about systemic racism in America are the beneficiaries of what they themselves call “white priviledge”. They are mostly white, college educated, raised in all-white suburbs. If they are above the age of 30, they are currently living in all-white suburbs.
Click to expand...
This struck me. I recently talked with a friend about this. She has a son (adopted) who is black and buys 100% into the story; is telling her little boy he needs to fear the police. 😦 As we talked she told me how she grew up in a 100% wealthy white suburb. She is college-educated.

I, by contrast, grew up in a very egalitarian world due to my father’s work, very integrated, where I saw people working together and all that mattered was that the job was well done because lives depended on it. I think what she’s telling her son is wrong and detrimental – because of my experiences growing up. I see a world she doesn’t see.

I have long begun to think that people’s views of how racist the world is – is really more a reflection of their own internal landscape than the outer world.
 
Poet said:
And really, the question was about compromising
Click to expand...
No, the original question was about talking to each other. At least it was for me. And “I want them beaten” refers directly to people.
Poet said:
Do you say that babies can be killed only up to 6 months but not 9
Click to expand...
Do not ever put words in my mouth. I was not addressing any particular position or issue, but rather the entire tone of what passes for debate these days, and your attacks are a perfect example of what I am saying.
 
WingedHussar said:
There is no substitute for victory. We have seen what decades of compromise has gotten conservatives anyway. They could not even conserve the ladies’ room.
Click to expand...
I wonder what victory you think you could win? From this “no compromise” position of yours, I wonder what you expect to with all the Democrats? Obviously you are not going to convert them to Republicans with that attitude. That leaves either
  1. deporting them
  2. killing them
  3. keeping them around as a subjugated underclass.
None of these sound very attractive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top