RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:And again

Nice graphic but who was stopping people taking the knee or protesting peacefully? .

Literally Trump and his friends in charge of the sports leagues.

Puja

Jesus H Christ, Sandy, you couldn't have a worse fucking take if you tried.

Puja wrote:I'd like to take a moment to note that I officially hate the argument that "Protests are costing Biden the election and will lead to another 4 years of Trump." No, Biden is costing himself the election by being milquetoast and unwilling to commit to any policy or position that isn't, "I'm not Donald Trump," that he's allowing Trump to define his position for him as a radical dangerous extremist that wants to abolish police, the suburbs, and whiteness.

It's become an election of both sides shouting that the other is terrible and is going to destroy America. It doesn't matter that Biden's telling the truth and Trump is lying - Trump is just flat-out better at that kind of game. If the protests stopped tomorrow, then it won't magically take away Trump's attack lines or give Biden any more credibility. Biden's already allowed Trump to define him and I'm genuinely concerned that he's not going to be able to come back from it.

Puja

Whether one likes the argument or not is irrelevant, the protesting and some of the ensuing violence is helping Trump. And in many ways there's not a lot Biden can do about that given it's a national security issue. Biden can object all he wants to the fairness of that, even the sanity of that, but as so often the election isn't about the issues and where the candidates stand, rather it's just about what issues get coverage. Trump could cite this goes against him in other areas, if the conversation returns to pandemic which seems possible then Biden will beat Trump, almost no matter what either of them actually say and do.

But we're just off the back of the RNC convention and Trump was always likely to get a boost, and a boost Biden wasn't likely to get because there wasn't much more ground Biden could gain post the Democratic convention.

cashead wrote: Fuck off.

There would be some slim chance this falls foul of the request not to display bad manners or rudeness. Good news though, I am off for a run so it'll sort of come true.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:I'd like to take a moment to note that I officially hate the argument that "Protests are costing Biden the election and will lead to another 4 years of Trump." No, Biden is costing himself the election by being milquetoast and unwilling to commit to any policy or position that isn't, "I'm not Donald Trump," that he's allowing Trump to define his position for him as a radical dangerous extremist that wants to abolish police, the suburbs, and whiteness.

It's become an election of both sides shouting that the other is terrible and is going to destroy America. It doesn't matter that Biden's telling the truth and Trump is lying - Trump is just flat-out better at that kind of game. If the protests stopped tomorrow, then it won't magically take away Trump's attack lines or give Biden any more credibility. Biden's already allowed Trump to define him and I'm genuinely concerned that he's not going to be able to come back from it.

Puja

Whether one likes the argument or not is irrelevant, the protesting and some of the ensuing violence is helping Trump. And in many ways there's not a lot Biden can do about that given it's a national security issue. Biden can object all he wants to the fairness of that, even the sanity of that, but as so often the election isn't about the issues and where the candidates stand, rather it's just about what issues get coverage. Trump could cite this goes against him in other areas, if the conversation returns to pandemic which seems possible then Biden will beat Trump, almost no matter what either of them actually say and do.

But we're just off the back of the RNC convention and Trump was always likely to get a boost, and a boost Biden wasn't likely to get because there wasn't much more ground Biden could gain post the Democratic convention.

Sorry, to clarify - the argument that I hate is the one that goes, "Stop protesting idiots, you're costing Biden the election." You're right that Trump is making hay, but a) stopping won't help that and b) Biden should have innured himself against this by offering some kind of positive vision rather than choosing to remain nebulous and open to all with his only promise being "Not Trump".

Banquo wrote:https://ig.ft.com/us-election-2020/

I am concerned that the polling is not taking shy Trump voters into account enough. There's a very real stigma around voting Trump (you know, cause of all the literal fascism) and I'm worried there's a significant number who won't say they're voting for him, but when they get to the polling station will think, "Well, okay, Trump might be an awful person, but at least he's strong against socialism and protecting 'The American Dream' (TM)."

Puja

I’d like to ask sandy, diggers, et al. what exactly do they think peaceful protest has got the black population of America?

And if that fails, which it obviously has since no action has been taken overs the years this has been going on, what other possible recourse do they have?

We’re talking about people who literally have no other voice and no other choice to make that voice heard.

The fact there are no real donors for blm who could, for instance, subsidize a mass strike for black peoples across the country...

They should still do that. If all black workers went on strike, it’d shut the economy down.

Stom wrote:The fact there are no real donors for blm

BuT wHaT aBoUt GeOrGe SoRoS aNd BiLl GaTeS?!?!?!11?!ONE!!

Puja

Stom wrote:I’d like to ask sandy, diggers, et al. what exactly do they think peaceful protest has got the black population of America?

And if that fails, which it obviously has since no action has been taken overs the years this has been going on, what other possible recourse do they have?

We’re talking about people who literally have no other voice and no other choice to make that voice heard.

The fact there are no real donors for blm who could, for instance, subsidize a mass strike for black peoples across the country...

They should still do that. If all black workers went on strike, it’d shut the economy down.

An equal vote, access to education and health services, access to the same jobs, access to the middle classes. There are still far too many living in poverty and without sufficient access to decent enough services but things have improved even when society is skewed. I view it more as a work in progress. And we're not talking about people without a voice, from the protest movements, through BLM, through the emergence of BAME political candidates, through voices in the media it'd be a refusal to even glance at reality to suggest there's no voice.

And I don't think you can burn the current situation to the ground and be confident anything better emerges. If you've got a plan to make everything better by tomorrow then please let us know, I'd support it, but given the situation as is change might be coming but it's going to have to be fought for over and over, that people are tired of being angry that not enough has changed doesn't change that

Also how much more do you want to shutdown an economy than is the case already during a pandemic? And how do we mitigate who's going to be hurt by such action?

And if you think there aren't enough donors for BLM then donate, I have. Okay there isn't any way that covers a mass strike by tens of millions of people but Bill Gates couldn't afford that

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:I’d like to ask sandy, diggers, et al. what exactly do they think peaceful protest has got the black population of America?

And if that fails, which it obviously has since no action has been taken overs the years this has been going on, what other possible recourse do they have?

We’re talking about people who literally have no other voice and no other choice to make that voice heard.

The fact there are no real donors for blm who could, for instance, subsidize a mass strike for black peoples across the country...

They should still do that. If all black workers went on strike, it’d shut the economy down.

An equal vote, access to education and health services, access to the same jobs, access to the middle classes. There are still far too many living in poverty and without sufficient access to decent enough services but things have improved even when society is skewed. I view it more as a work in progress. And we're not talking about people without a voice, from the protest movements, through BLM, through the emergence of BAME political candidates, through voices in the media it'd be a refusal to even glance at reality to suggest there's no voice.

And I don't think you can burn the current situation to the ground and be confident anything better emerges. If you've got a plan to make everything better by tomorrow then please let us know, I'd support it, but given the situation as is change might be coming but it's going to have to be fought for over and over, that people are tired of being angry that not enough has changed doesn't change that

Also how much more do you want to shutdown an economy than is the case already during a pandemic? And how do we mitigate who's going to be hurt by such action?

And if you think there aren't enough donors for BLM then donate, I have. Okay there isn't any way that covers a mass strike by tens of millions of people but Bill Gates couldn't afford that

But at its core, this is about police racism and brutality and that has definitely been getting worse and worse over the past 10 years.

They need to scrap many police services and start again with a more representative group of sheriffs and a distancing from this gun fetish pseudo army thing.

I don’t know who can run for sheriff, but I’d have been trying to get as many black candidates up as possible. But that might not be possible, and there’s no guarantee they’d actually win.

So then change needs to be forced.

Throughout history, real change has only happened through force, not through voting.

Digby wrote: And if you think there aren't enough donors for BLM then donate, I have. Okay there isn't any way that covers a mass strike by tens of millions of people but Bill Gates couldn't afford that

On a complete pedantic sidenote, Bill Gates is worth $117bn. If we say that he wanted to spend his money on paying $1.5k per month to every black person of working age in the USA to enable them to strike, he could do that for 4 months and still have $3bn left, which would allow him to live comfortably on $60m per year for the next 50 years, assuming no investment return whatsoever.

It's entirely beside the point and complete pedantry, but he could absolutely afford to, if he ever got a sudden urge to.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote: And if you think there aren't enough donors for BLM then donate, I have. Okay there isn't any way that covers a mass strike by tens of millions of people but Bill Gates couldn't afford that

On a complete pedantic sidenote, Bill Gates is worth $117bn. If we say that he wanted to spend his money on paying $1.5k per month to every black person of working age in the USA to enable them to strike, he could do that for 4 months and still have $3bn left, which would allow him to live comfortably on $60m per year for the next 50 years, assuming no investment return whatsoever.

It's entirely beside the point and complete pedantry, but he could absolutely afford to, if he ever got a sudden urge to.

Puja

Which isn't as long as I was supposing a strike would take, and also off the top of my head seems less black workers than I was supposing (I went with 30 million to keep the numbers easier). Also whilst I don't know how much cash Gate has in his total fortune I'd venture it's somewhat less than the whole, so practically you'd be looking at a much lower spend.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote: And if you think there aren't enough donors for BLM then donate, I have. Okay there isn't any way that covers a mass strike by tens of millions of people but Bill Gates couldn't afford that

On a complete pedantic sidenote, Bill Gates is worth $117bn. If we say that he wanted to spend his money on paying $1.5k per month to every black person of working age in the USA to enable them to strike, he could do that for 4 months and still have $3bn left, which would allow him to live comfortably on $60m per year for the next 50 years, assuming no investment return whatsoever.

It's entirely beside the point and complete pedantry, but he could absolutely afford to, if he ever got a sudden urge to.

Puja

Which isn't as long as I was supposing a strike would take, and also off the top of my head seems less black workers than I was supposing (I went with 30 million to keep the numbers easier). Also whilst I don't know how much cash Gate has in his total fortune I'd venture it's somewhat less than the whole, so practically you'd be looking at a much lower spend.

A rough google came up with 19 million black people in the workforce, which is what I went for. And $1.5k per person per month is a lot more than most strike funds would pay out.

It's entirely beside the point, as I doubt he's interested in spending his money on paying people to strike. Just being a pedant.

Puja

Digby wrote:

cashead wrote: Fuck off.

There would be some slim chance this falls foul of the request not to display bad manners or rudeness. Good news though, I am off for a run so it'll sort of come true.

As opposed to your bad faith arguing? Fuck off.

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:

cashead wrote: Fuck off.

There would be some slim chance this falls foul of the request not to display bad manners or rudeness. Good news though, I am off for a run so it'll sort of come true.

As opposed to your bad faith arguing? Fuck off.

Have you ever thought that enlightening someone as to why their view is based upon a false assumption may be better than simply telling them to fuck off?

It's got a much better chance of success...

Stom wrote:

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:
There would be some slim chance this falls foul of the request not to display bad manners or rudeness. Good news though, I am off for a run so it'll sort of come true.

As opposed to your bad faith arguing? Fuck off.

Have you ever thought that enlightening someone as to why their view is based upon a false assumption may be better than simply telling them to fuck off?

It's got a much better chance of success...

Shut the fuck up.

cashead wrote:

Stom wrote:

cashead wrote: As opposed to your bad faith arguing? Fuck off.

Have you ever thought that enlightening someone as to why their view is based upon a false assumption may be better than simply telling them to fuck off?

It's got a much better chance of success...

Shut the fuck up.

You're doing far more harm to the cause than benefit. If you don't want to debate and you don't want to push an agenda, why the fuck are you posting here in this way? Pull yourself together and respond with humanity to people or listen to your own advice.

Stom wrote:

cashead wrote:

Stom wrote:
Have you ever thought that enlightening someone as to why their view is based upon a false assumption may be better than simply telling them to fuck off?

It's got a much better chance of success...

Shut the fuck up.

You're doing far more harm to the cause than benefit. If you don't want to debate and you don't want to push an agenda, why the fuck are you posting here in this way? Pull yourself together and respond with humanity to people or listen to your own advice.

I don’t owe you an explanation, champ.

Well... this is awkward.

Mikey Brown wrote:Well... this is awkward.

And you... you’re alright.

Mikey Brown wrote:I love this idea that there is a more mild form of protest that would actually prompt some action (or even acknowledgement) towards the issues people are protesting. They're currently just holding back on a load of solutions for police brutality and racial equality? Waiting until people have politely registered their outrage and lack of representation in the correct format.

It's not about everyone coming to an agreement that violent protesting is good, but there seems to be this broad refusal to accept that so many people are desperate enough to risk getting beaten, pepper sprayed and shot at by the police, day after day, in order to try and change things.

Everybody voting is a nice idea. Maybe they are just lazy and can't be arsed to vote, I dunno. The same arguments about why black voter turnout is so low go on and on. Does it persist because it's an excuse or because nothing is actually being done about it? Assuming they actually believe there is someone worth voting for.

This post is mostly correct and good.

Stom wrote:

cashead wrote:

Stom wrote:
Have you ever thought that enlightening someone as to why their view is based upon a false assumption may be better than simply telling them to fuck off?

It's got a much better chance of success...

Shut the fuck up.

You're doing far more harm to the cause than benefit. If you don't want to debate and you don't want to push an agenda, why the fuck are you posting here in this way? Pull yourself together and respond with humanity to people or listen to your own advice.

It's all amusing stuff from Citizen Cas, even if I'm also a little bemused one might consider you can contend such as white supremacy by partaking of a woke supremacy.

As an aside my starting view point of violence is a bad doesn't seem to me to be a false assumption. In Syria you'd have a case there is no recourse to legal and democratic change, that's simply not the case in the USA

Mikey Brown wrote:I love this idea that there is a more mild form of protest that would actually prompt some action (or even acknowledgement) towards the issues people are protesting. They're currently just holding back on a load of solutions for police brutality and racial equality? Waiting until people have politely registered their outrage and lack of representation in the correct format.

It's not about everyone coming to an agreement that violent protesting is good, but there seems to be this broad refusal to accept that so many people are desperate enough to risk getting beaten, pepper sprayed and shot at by the police, day after day, in order to try and change things.

Everybody voting is a nice idea. Maybe they are just lazy and can't be arsed to vote, I dunno. The same arguments about why black voter turnout is so low go on and on. Does it persist because it's an excuse or because nothing is actually being done about it? Assuming they actually believe there is someone worth voting for.

Mild protesting can prompt change and is historically much more successful than violent protest, violent protest tends not to secure the change wanted and can often make things worse. The idea there's more than a mild protest is thus an odd one to me.

Black voter turnout isn't especially low either, it's basically the same as white voter turnout, though you could and I would argue both don't actually vote enough. So there's a massive upside to black (and other minority groups) voting that hasn't so far been exploited across the range of elections in the US. Getting voters registered and getting them out to vote, and where they don't like the candidates because they're not addressing the issues they think important get them to vote for the party candidates earlier in the process. Change is possible, it's just very slow. I don't like it's very slow, I do prefer that to violence, and I especially prefer that to violence I don't think will work anyway.

Digby wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I love this idea that there is a more mild form of protest that would actually prompt some action (or even acknowledgement) towards the issues people are protesting. They're currently just holding back on a load of solutions for police brutality and racial equality? Waiting until people have politely registered their outrage and lack of representation in the correct format.

It's not about everyone coming to an agreement that violent protesting is good, but there seems to be this broad refusal to accept that so many people are desperate enough to risk getting beaten, pepper sprayed and shot at by the police, day after day, in order to try and change things.

Everybody voting is a nice idea. Maybe they are just lazy and can't be arsed to vote, I dunno. The same arguments about why black voter turnout is so low go on and on. Does it persist because it's an excuse or because nothing is actually being done about it? Assuming they actually believe there is someone worth voting for.

Mild protesting can prompt change and is historically much more successful than violent protest, violent protest tends not to secure the change wanted and can often make things worse. The idea there's more than a mild protest is thus an odd one to me.

Black voter turnout isn't especially low either, it's basically the same as white voter turnout, though you could and I would argue both don't actually vote enough. So there's a massive upside to black (and other minority groups) voting that hasn't so far been exploited across the range of elections in the US. Getting voters registered and getting them out to vote, and where they don't like the candidates because they're not addressing the issues they think important get them to vote for the party candidates earlier in the process. Change is possible, it's just very slow. I don't like it's very slow, I do prefer that to violence, and I especially prefer that to violence I don't think will work anyway.

Firstly, when has “mild” protesting created actual change?

Secondly, you’re missing the point by drawing parallels with your own experiences. Which is normal. They don’t have those same experiences.

While it may seem normal and useful to draw a parallel to something you know, it’s actual potentially damaging as there is no parallel for them.

And the violence of the protests can actually be directly attributable to the actions of the police in dealing with what started as completely peaceful protests.

The police wanted to escalate this. They wanted to get out their big weaponry they’d spent millions on. They wanted to paint the protestors as violent. So how do you do this? Be violent and let the right wing media do the rest for you.

And while you may say “vote”, listen to the stories of voters and of those running for office, and do so without prejudice.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I love this idea that there is a more mild form of protest that would actually prompt some action (or even acknowledgement) towards the issues people are protesting. They're currently just holding back on a load of solutions for police brutality and racial equality? Waiting until people have politely registered their outrage and lack of representation in the correct format.

It's not about everyone coming to an agreement that violent protesting is good, but there seems to be this broad refusal to accept that so many people are desperate enough to risk getting beaten, pepper sprayed and shot at by the police, day after day, in order to try and change things.

Everybody voting is a nice idea. Maybe they are just lazy and can't be arsed to vote, I dunno. The same arguments about why black voter turnout is so low go on and on. Does it persist because it's an excuse or because nothing is actually being done about it? Assuming they actually believe there is someone worth voting for.

Mild protesting can prompt change and is historically much more successful than violent protest, violent protest tends not to secure the change wanted and can often make things worse. The idea there's more than a mild protest is thus an odd one to me.

Black voter turnout isn't especially low either, it's basically the same as white voter turnout, though you could and I would argue both don't actually vote enough. So there's a massive upside to black (and other minority groups) voting that hasn't so far been exploited across the range of elections in the US. Getting voters registered and getting them out to vote, and where they don't like the candidates because they're not addressing the issues they think important get them to vote for the party candidates earlier in the process. Change is possible, it's just very slow. I don't like it's very slow, I do prefer that to violence, and I especially prefer that to violence I don't think will work anyway.

Firstly, when has “mild” protesting created actual change?

Secondly, you’re missing the point by drawing parallels with your own experiences. Which is normal. They don’t have those same experiences.

While it may seem normal and useful to draw a parallel to something you know, it’s actual potentially damaging as there is no parallel for them.

And the violence of the protests can actually be directly attributable to the actions of the police in dealing with what started as completely peaceful protests.

The police wanted to escalate this. They wanted to get out their big weaponry they’d spent millions on. They wanted to paint the protestors as violent. So how do you do this? Be violent and let the right wing media do the rest for you.

And while you may say “vote”, listen to the stories of voters and of those running for office, and do so without prejudice.

Mild, or legal, protesting creates change all the time. Frankly if people are unable to do more with a message of mums dressed in yellow standing in front of kids out protesting to dissuade police from shooting at them than violent actions you're not even trying to advance an agenda for change, you're just looking for a fight.

I'm some sympathy with wanting to look for a fight, I quite enjoy violence, as I suspect do many others. I just think it's helpful to a society if we limit the violence to boxing or rugby, and not consider just because I'm livid about Brexit I get to take a baseball bat and cave in the head of everyone I can find in the ERG and the likes of Farage, Banks, Cummings...

You'd have to remove many more societal norms before I think violence becomes part of any solution.

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:
Mild protesting can prompt change and is historically much more successful than violent protest, violent protest tends not to secure the change wanted and can often make things worse. The idea there's more than a mild protest is thus an odd one to me.

Black voter turnout isn't especially low either, it's basically the same as white voter turnout, though you could and I would argue both don't actually vote enough. So there's a massive upside to black (and other minority groups) voting that hasn't so far been exploited across the range of elections in the US. Getting voters registered and getting them out to vote, and where they don't like the candidates because they're not addressing the issues they think important get them to vote for the party candidates earlier in the process. Change is possible, it's just very slow. I don't like it's very slow, I do prefer that to violence, and I especially prefer that to violence I don't think will work anyway.

Firstly, when has “mild” protesting created actual change?

Secondly, you’re missing the point by drawing parallels with your own experiences. Which is normal. They don’t have those same experiences.

While it may seem normal and useful to draw a parallel to something you know, it’s actual potentially damaging as there is no parallel for them.

And the violence of the protests can actually be directly attributable to the actions of the police in dealing with what started as completely peaceful protests.

The police wanted to escalate this. They wanted to get out their big weaponry they’d spent millions on. They wanted to paint the protestors as violent. So how do you do this? Be violent and let the right wing media do the rest for you.

And while you may say “vote”, listen to the stories of voters and of those running for office, and do so without prejudice.

Mild, or legal, protesting creates change all the time. Frankly if people are unable to do more with a message of mums dressed in yellow standing in front of kids out protesting to dissuade police from shooting at them than violent actions you're not even trying to advance an agenda for change, you're just looking for a fight.

I'm some sympathy with wanting to look for a fight, I quite enjoy violence, as I suspect do many others. I just think it's helpful to a society if we limit the violence to boxing or rugby, and not consider just because I'm livid about Brexit I get to take a baseball bat and cave in the head of everyone I can find in the ERG and the likes of Farage, Banks, Cummings...

You'd have to remove many more societal norms before I think violence becomes part of any solution.

Nice question dodging, Sir Humphrey.