It's Kamala!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-01-2020, 07:38 PM)Dill Wrote: These are reasonable points. But it's not quite accurate to say Dems in general have not been condemning the violence. Here's Biden on May 31, three months ago.

https://medium.com/@JoeBiden/we-are-a-nation-furious-at-injustice-9dcffd81978f

Protesting such brutality is right and necessary. It’s an utterly American response. But burning down communities and needless destruction is not. Violence that endangers lives is not. Violence that guts and shutters businesses that serve the community is not.

The act of protesting should never be allowed to overshadow the reason we protest. It should not drive people away from the just cause that protest is meant to advance.

Kamala might be a little late, but other Dems certainly aren't. Starting with the Dem majors of every city hit by riots.

I appreciate your honesty here, but it's not the whole story.  As stated in my thread on the subject, the violence in Portland has been ongoing for over three months.  It's the right thing to condemn the violence, but it's another thing to not spotlight it and consistently do so when it is ongoing and persistent.  This is where even Biden, who I admit has been better than most Dems on this topic, fails completely.

[Dill]

(09-01-2020, 07:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I appreciate your honesty here, but it's not the whole story.  As stated in my thread on the subject, the violence in Portland has been ongoing for over three months.  It's the right thing to condemn the violence, but it's another thing to not spotlight it and consistently do so when it is ongoing and persistent.  This is where even Biden, who I admit has been better than most Dems on this topic, fails completely.

Not sure what counts as "consistently" and "spotlighting." 

In Portland, minimal violence was overshadowed by events like "the wall of moms." 

It's takeover of the Portland narrative has been gradual, from a few rock throwers to organized attacks on the courthouse to the convergence of rioters and Trump supporters with paintball guns and bear spray. 

Thus the condemnation has been gradual. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-01-2020, 08:22 PM)Dill Wrote: Not sure what counts as "consistently" and "spotlighting."

How about condemning it on a daily basis as it continues on a daily basis? 

Quote:In Portland, minimal violence was overshadowed by events like "the wall of moms." 

I'm sure the victims of the "minimal violence" would describe it otherwise.  As for you assertion of being overshadowed, does reporting on the "wall of moms" preclude reporting on the violence later in the same day?

Quote:It's takeover of the Portland narrative has been gradual, from a few rock throwers to organized attacks on the courthouse to the convergence of rioters and Trump supporters with paintball guns and bear spray. 

This assertion is demonstrably false.  The organized attacks took place well before Trump sent in the Feds and well before the "wall of moms".  In fact, Trump sending in the Feds was what prompted the "wall of moms".

Quote:Thus the condemnation has been gradual. 

No, it's been rather immediate, as in very recent, for most.  As stated, Biden has been better than most Dems in this regard, but that's unfortunately not saying much.

[Dill]

(09-01-2020, 04:37 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No problem. It's the way political discourse SHOULD happen, IMO. BTW, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was celebrating my 6th wedding anniversary with my wife over the weekend.

Happy Anniversery! That's more imortant than message board stuff.

(09-01-2020, 04:37 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I think you're definition was not really a definition, IMO. I think you were making the argument that 'race' was not a social construct but rather a biological one. That's a different argument and while it COULD have a bearing on whether or not something or someone was racist, I don't think it really matters in this discussion.
Are you talking about my definition or yours? Mine certainly does support that claim. 

Before we go any further, something's not right. Look at the definition again:

A definition of "racism" I'd say, at a minimum, ought to include a belief that "race" is a biological given, not a social/cultural construction, a belief that some "races" are inherently superior or inferior, and that this inherence ought to be reflected in political order. This basis is necessary even where people insist that "racism" can only be behavior, not thought and belief unacted, or when it can only be "systemic."

I said that RACISM is grounded on a belief that race is a "biological given," NOT a social construct. I.e., that is what racists believe--race is "real" and biological; NON-racists dispute that biological claim.

I don't see how you get from that that I was saying race was NOT a social construct but a biological one. Non-racists recognize race as a social construct; racists believe it is a natural biological category.

What made/makes racism bad is that racists also conclude that some races are inferior, and social order should reflect this.

If racists did not think--and act--on that belief, there would be nothing wrong with racism.

This is not a "different argument." If we are talking about racism, we are talking about a belief in the biological superiority of one race over another, and the consequences of that belief. If we are not talking about that, then we are not talking about racism at all. If that doesn't apply to Biden's VP pick, then it "doesn't matter for this discussion" because Biden's actions do not fit the definition--i.e., are not "racist."

Finally, "your" definition comes from a dictionary. Where do dictionaries get a definition for race? From the history and sociology of racism, i.e., where I got "my" definition. In order to do any research on racism, one has to be able to define it so that it can be recognized as not some other thing. My definition is the result of that effort.

[Dill]

(09-01-2020, 08:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How about condemning it on a daily basis as it continues on a daily basis? 

I'm sure the victims of the "minimal violence" would describe it otherwise.  As for you assertion of being overshadowed, does reporting on the "wall of moms" preclude reporting on the violence later in the same day?

This assertion is demonstrably false.  The organized attacks took place well before Trump sent in the Feds and well before the "wall of moms".  In fact, Trump sending in the Feds was what prompted the "wall of moms".
No, it's been rather immediate, as in very recent, for most.  As stated, Biden has been better than most Dems in this regard, but that's unfortunately not saying much.

No. Even Trump doesn't condemn the the violence on a daily basis. 

And no assertion in my post is "demonstrably false."  You claimed it took someone being killed before anyone (any Dem) "took a stand." THAT is demonstrably false.

We aren't having protests in US cities, and riots in Portland, because Dems are ok with violence. Or because they, or anyone, don't condemn it enough.  

We have riots in US cities, and continuously in Portland, because millions of people believe there is a two-track justice system in the US. (Victims of police violence don't think that minimal either.)

There are two parties, two leaders, with two different approaches to this problem. One does a lot of partisan condemning of violence (with a wink to militia participation) sprinkled with falsehoods about who and what is driving it, and wants to send in the military to "dominate the streets." The other wants to address the causes of the protests/riots, working through police reform.

Which one will work? That is what people ought to be discussing in this forum.  Not whether politicians are condemning violence "on a daily basis." 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-02-2020, 02:19 PM)Dill Wrote: No. Even Trump doesn't condemn the the violence on a daily basis.

He just does it more than any of the Dems.  Got it. 

Quote:And no assertion in my post is "demonstrably false."  You claimed it took someone being killed before anyone (any Dem) "took a stand." THAT is demonstrably false.

We aren't having protests in US cities, and riots in Portland, because Dems are ok with violence. Or because they, or anyone, don't condemn it enough.  

If they're not OK with it why do they continue to allow it to continue?  Why did it take people having to die before they started to condemn the riots in large numbers?

Quote:We have riots in US cities, and continuously in Portland, because millions of people believe there is a two-track justice system in the US. (Victims of police violence don't think that minimal either.)

People can believe whatever they want, it doesn't make them correct.  Even if they were 100% in the right the routines violence is not acceptable, should never be acceptable, should be condemned in every instance and every legal recourse should be used to prevent further violence. 

Also, the number of people who believe something is irrelevant to its truthfulness or morality.  By this logic the millions of people who fought against ending segregation were in the right because there were millions of them.

Quote:There are two parties, two leaders, with two different approaches to this problem. One does a lot of partisan condemning of violence (with a wink to militia participation) sprinkled with falsehoods about who and what is driving it, and wants to send in the military to "dominate the streets." The other wants to address the causes of the protests/riots, working through police reform.

You forgot to add that one of them mitigated or outright ignored much of the violence until very recently.  Was that the correct tactic?

Quote:Which one will work? That is what people ought to be discussing in this forum. 

Quote: Not whether politicians are condemning violence "on a daily basis." 

We aren't doing exactly that in this, and other, threads?

[GMDino]

(09-02-2020, 02:19 PM)Dill Wrote: No. Even Trump doesn't condemn the the violence on a daily basis. 

And no assertion in my post is "demonstrably false."  You claimed it took someone being killed before anyone (any Dem) "took a stand." THAT is demonstrably false.

We aren't having protests in US cities, and riots in Portland, because Dems are ok with violence. Or because they, or anyone, don't condemn it enough.  

We have riots in US cities, and continuously in Portland, because millions of people believe there is a two-track justice system in the US. (Victims of police violence don't think that minimal either.)

There are two parties, two leaders, with two different approaches to this problem. One does a lot of partisan condemning of violence (with a wink to militia participation) sprinkled with falsehoods about who and what is driving it, and wants to send in the military to "dominate the streets." The other wants to address the causes of the protests/riots, working through police reform.

Which one will work? That is what people ought to be discussing in this forum.  Not whether politicians are condemning violence "on a daily basis." 

Trump only condemns violence if he deems it from "The other side".

He says nothing of the Boogaloos killing a police officer in Oakland.  He says nothing or people who are racist or hateful as long as they support HIM.

[Dill]

(09-02-2020, 03:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: He just does it more than any of the Dems.  Got it. 

If they're not OK with it why do they continue to allow it to continue?  Why did it take people having to die before they started to condemn the riots in large numbers?

People can believe whatever they want, it doesn't make them correct.  Even if they were 100% in the right the routines violence is not acceptable, should never be acceptable, should be condemned in every instance and every legal recourse should be used to prevent further violence. 

Also, the number of people who believe something is irrelevant to its truthfulness or morality.  By this logic the millions of people who fought against ending segregation were in the right because there were millions of them.

You forgot to add that one of them mitigated or outright ignored much of the violence until very recently.  Was that the correct tactic?

We aren't doing exactly that in this, and other, threads?

1. Who "allows it to continue"? Biden and Harris are not in power. They can't order police into the streets. The mayors in the afflicted cities are not "allowing" it to continue, even if efforts to prevent it are not always effective. The mayors and governors in question are not using the tactics you want, and certainly not the ones Trump wants. That doesn't mean rioters have their permission.

2. My description of a division in the US over the causes of the protests and riots neither states nor implies that numbers make beliefs "correct" or "truthful" or "moral." You are refuting a "logic" which isn't there. Numbers are not "irrelevant" to elections and policies, though.

3. No one has "mitigated" the violence, unless you are refering to Trump's exception for his supporters. And it is not a "correct tactic" to focus on effects in place of causes.

4. Not sure, with the amount of thread space devoted to who "condemns violence" or not, and assumptions the violence is "allowed." 
 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-03-2020, 03:01 AM)Dill Wrote: 1. Who "allows it to continue"? Biden and Harris are not in power. They can't order police into the streets. The mayors in the afflicted cities are not "allowing" it to continue, even if efforts to prevent it are not always effective. The mayors and governors in question are not using the tactics you want, and certainly not the ones Trump wants. That doesn't mean rioters have their permission.

Standing by and doing nothing is not a tactic.  Not prosecuting rioters is.  Both enable riots.  

Quote:2. My description of a division in the US over the causes of the protests and riots neither states nor implies that numbers make beliefs "correct" or "truthful" or "moral." You are refuting a "logic" which isn't there. Numbers are not "irrelevant" to elections and policies, though.

So your point was just that numbers matter in elections?  I guess thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Quote:3. No one has "mitigated" the violence, unless you are refering to Trump's exception for his supporters. And it is not a "correct tactic" to focus on effects in place of causes.

Utterly false.  The protests have consistently been described as "largely peaceful" long past the time this was true.  

Quote:4. Not sure, with the amount of thread space devoted to who "condemns violence" or not, and assumptions the violence is "allowed." 
 

Your not being sure doesn't mean the rest of us aren't.

[fredtoast]

(09-03-2020, 10:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Utterly false.  The protests have consistently been described as "largely peaceful" long past the time this was true.  

I am pretty sure that phrase has not been used in months.

Every single news source I have checked lately talks about the violence going on.  It seems kind of silly to keep attacking Biden and the left for something they no longer do.  


The southern states took too long to reject slavery.  Should we still be attacking them for that?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-03-2020, 06:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am pretty sure that phrase has not been used in months.

Well, here's one from PBS on 07/26.  That's definitely not "months" away. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1MaACWztYg

To keep it more current here's one from 08/31.  That's this week, not "months" ago.

https://wtop.com/dc/2020/08/dc-officials-blame-outside-agitators-for-disrupting-peaceful-protests/

Quote:Every single news source I have checked lately talks about the violence going on.  It seems kind of silly to keep attacking Biden and the left for something they no longer do.  

It only took them three months, well done!    I guess they got the word that the polls had shifted on this topic.

Quote:The southern states took too long to reject slavery.  Should we still be attacking them for that?

An interesting statement.  You're right though, I literally never hear a leftist berating the South for the Confederacy or slavery.

[fredtoast]

(09-03-2020, 08:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, here's one from PBS on 07/26.  That's definitely not "months" away. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1MaACWztYg

To keep it more current here's one from 08/31.  That's this week, not "months" ago.

https://wtop.com/dc/2020/08/dc-officials-blame-outside-agitators-for-disrupting-peaceful-protests/

The first one admits that the protestors had been trying to start fires and throwing water bottles.  I don't know if there had been a lot of people injured at that point.

The second one talks extensively about the violence, so I don't even know why you posted it.  It just discusses if outside agitators are responsible for the violence.

[fredtoast]

(09-03-2020, 08:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: An interesting statement.  You're right though, I literally never hear a leftist berating the South for the Confederacy or slavery.

That is funny because I hear it a lot.  And the response from the right it always "You can't criticize us because we have not supported slavery in a long time."

[Belsnickel]

(09-03-2020, 08:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, here's one from PBS on 07/26.  That's definitely not "months" away. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1MaACWztYg

To keep it more current here's one from 08/31.  That's this week, not "months" ago.

https://wtop.com/dc/2020/08/dc-officials-blame-outside-agitators-for-disrupting-peaceful-protests/



It only took them three months, well done!    I guess they got the word that the polls had shifted on this topic.

In all seriousness, though, the protests have been largely peaceful. There is a disproportionate amount of attention paid to the violence because that is what sells, but there have been peaceful protests going on this whole time. From my perspective, people have been trying to focus the lens on what benefits them the most to further their agenda. Some people ignore that there are many of peaceful protesters and some people try to downplay the violence of the riots.

[*bfine32*]

(09-04-2020, 10:04 AM)fredtoast Wrote: That is funny because I hear it a lot.  And the response from the right it always "You can't criticize us because we have not supported slavery in a long time."

I hear the same from Democrats

[fredtoast]

(09-04-2020, 10:40 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I hear the same from Democrats

Exactly.  That is my point.

Once EITHER side really changes their position we should judge them on their present position instead of the past.

[fredtoast]

(09-04-2020, 10:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote:  people have been trying to focus the lens on what benefits them the most to further their agenda. Some people ignore that there are many of peaceful protesters and some people try to downplay the violence of the riots.

This.

[Belsnickel]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/515082-over-90-percent-of-protests-this-summer-were-peaceful-report-shows

Quote:Despite several incidents of protests against racism and police brutality turning violent, more than 90 percent of the summer’s protests were peaceful, according to an analysis released Thursday.

The report, produced by the nonprofit Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, identified 7,750 protests between May 26 and Aug. 22 in 2,400 locations, according to The Washington Post.

The report found that about 220 became "violent" — a term defined as demonstrators fighting with police or with counterprotesters. The term also applies to demonstrations that resulted in property damage. In 93 percent of cases analyzed, there was no violence.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-04-2020, 10:01 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The first one admits that the protestors had been trying to start fires and throwing water bottles.  I don't know if there had been a lot of people injured at that point.

The second one talks extensively about the violence, so I don't even know why you posted it.  It just discusses if outside agitators are responsible for the violence.

Because they still use a term that you stated hasn't been used in months.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-04-2020, 10:04 AM)fredtoast Wrote: That is funny because I hear it a lot.  And the response from the right it always "You can't criticize us because we have not supported slavery in a long time."

I know sarcasm is hard to get from text, but I really laid it on thick in that post.