|
Atasnaya Vaflja posted:You realize sit ins and things like that weren't considered "peaceful" by a long stretch, right? They were considered riotous and illegal, which is why they had professionals brought in to perform them. No. The sit ins were considered peaceful by the majority of Americans and their power came from the clear moral disparity between the protestors' actions and the reactions of white supremacists.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:07 |
|
|
Yeah, the rear end in a top hat racists in the American south sure spun non-violent protest as whatever fit their narrative, but they were absolutely perceived throughout broader America as a peaceful action that shined a brilliant light on the stark inequality with which African Americans were treated. Were plenty of those non-Southern Americans still racist? Definitely. But the media coverage of the sit-ins and marches was essential for shifting the attitudes of the average American.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 15:28
|
|
The Kingfish posted:No. The sit ins were considered peaceful by the majority of Americans and their power came from the clear moral disparity between the protestors' actions and the reactions of white supremacists. Cugel the Clever posted:Yeah, the rear end in a top hat racists in the American south sure spun non-violent protest as whatever fit their narrative, but they were absolutely perceived throughout broader America as a peaceful action that shined a brilliant light on the stark inequality with which African Americans were treated. Were plenty of those non-Southern Americans still racist? Definitely. But the media coverage of the sit-ins and marches was essential for shifting the attitudes of the average American. Fascinating how a decade passed between Brown v. Board of Education and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, if the Civil Rights Movement had mass support except outside the South, the only racist part of the country. I suppose that all the peaceful protests took place after 1960?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Do Gandhi next. I'd love to see how the anger and sense of justice of great people in history can be distilled to "Don't do anything too bad"
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Fascinating how a decade passed between Brown v. Board of Education and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, if the Civil Rights Movement had mass support except outside the South, the only racist part of the country. I suppose that all the peaceful protests took place after 1960? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 16:04
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:It's almost as if you didn't read a word of the post you quoted It is endlessly fascinating how you and all the other people lined up in opposition to treating people with respect absolutely refuse to operate on the level of ideas or thinking, insisting that someone taking the logic you are using and applying it to a different situation is putting words in your mouth. It is disturbing how little you and your ilk read posts- not just skimming over the posts of people you think are agreeing with you, but also blatantly replying to posts without reading them. Is this semiliteracy? Delusion? Or malevolence? It is extremely funny that you accuse me of not reading your post (when I was responding to two of you jackasses) when you do not do so, meaning that it must be a very petty crime indeed. It is funnier that you think ignoring the emphasis to focus on an aside will justify you before God.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Atasnaya Vaflja posted:Peaceful protests and respectability politics work, which is why Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't assassinated and racism no long exists today. Oh I didn't realize the decision to assassinate King was the result of a national referendum
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
The very idea of respectability politics constitutes an insult against the whole of humanity- that they can always be bamboozled into doing something they disagree with by ingratiating noises and submissive behavior.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
If there's at least one person willing to kill you for what you're doing, then it's clear what you're doing isn't working. Perhaps Effectronica was just channeling James Earl Ray all along.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 16:24
|
|
TheWhiteNightmare posted:If there's at least one person willing to kill you for what you're doing, then it's clear what you're doing isn't working. Perhaps Effectronica was just channeling James Earl Ray all along. So is there a reason why you focus on people over the contents of posts, "TheWhiteNightmare"? I mean, beyond you being intellectually subpar.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:So is there a reason why you focus on people over the contents of posts, "TheWhiteNightmare"? I mean, beyond you being intellectually subpar. I've never believed in separating the art from the artist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 16:29
|
|
TheWhiteNightmare posted:I've never believed in separating the art from the artist. So given that you are prideful in your refusal to think, is there any reason to respond to your posts or give them more than the thought necessary to discern that they were indeed coughed forth by you?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
I don't read your posts because your posts are impossible to read. They are an assault on my senses lacking in any form of grace. To read more than a sentence written by you, electronica, is a burden that cannot be expected of anyone to bear. E: nobody said the civil rights movement had mass support outside of the south. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Mar 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 17:35
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I don't read your posts because your posts are impossible to read. They are an assault on my senses lacking in any form of grace. To read more than a sentence written by you, electronica, is a burden that cannot be expected of anyone to bear. Why are you proud of being willfully stupid? You all, because goons generally form up into sides at the slightest provocation, are saying that "brutality against peaceful protesters was what caused the Civil Rights Movement to achieve its goals." Now you are saying that people did not support the Civil Rights Movement in large numbers at any point. The disconnect between these two positions is unbridgeable without elaborate semantic arguments and great ingots of rationalization. All because you want to defend protesters being required to be saintly martyrs on the grounds that it works. In any case, I am glad that I am successful in making my posts unpleasant for people who have dedicated themselves to the service of ignorance to read.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
blowfish posted:It's simply not worth bothering with the first more private kind of identity in a society where everyone doesn't know everyone else. People who care about it (either way - both people wanting everyone to make a big deal out of their special snowflake status and people who flip their poo poo over the fact that people privately identify as something unusual) need to get over the fact that modern society is not a stone age tribe anymore. Yay! Now, if society would get the gently caress on with letting us do that... that'd be great. quote:See above: the best position to take would be "who gives a poo poo about that, sidiviscuous is first and foremost a shitposter on a dead gay kkkomedy forum" quote:There have been 8113 posts made by blowfish, an average of 6.42 posts per day, since registering on Oct 11, 2012. blowfish claims to be a porpoise. Lol.. All that life vanished arguing pointless crap in circles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
I contend that the "Ghandi trap," as it's called in the book linked in the authoritarian thread's OP, is the only known way to sway right-wing authoritarians against the status quo or their leaders, and that King's approach was vital to the movement, which isn't to say that Huey Newton's approach was not also vital. But ignorant white people at least can't get away with saying King was bad. The underlying point is, the only person whose mannerisms you can control is yourself, and trying to tell someone to stop being angry in a thread is never going to help, because it will always look condescending, particularly to whoever seems angry. If you think someone is mad, figure out why without their help and lead by example. Otherwise your goal is just to feel right, not to learn from the perspective of others. There's too much talk trying to secure moral high ground within the context of the thread, and it's exhausting. Effectronica, I thought the way you quoted Cugel made it seem like you thought Cugel meant that nobody in America outside the south was racist, because that's how you phrased it. That said, I forget why MLK was originally brought up, but I think someone like Flanders brought it up to tell someone to stop acting mad, which again is an ill-considered idea. I think it's obfuscative, however, to frame this issue in terms of "it's just acknowledging someone is human," because that leads someone to say "yes this person belongs to species Homo sapiens sapiens I would never doubt that  ," but the real matter at hand is that we take it for granted that you refer to people by the names to which they are accustomed, but we suddenly stop taking it for granted when the person is trans. It's a basic day-to-day aspect of humanity that we don't even notice until we find someone disputing a trans person's gender, and it's never not been a jerk who can only tell from things the person can't control, even though what they're going for is obvious. Yes there are hypothetical edge cases where a guy that looks and acts like Ted Cruz says "I'm a lady call me Diane," but the amount of focus I've seen on it here is comparable to making a vaccine thread be about "well what if I got a vaccine and then I broke out in herpes? What then?" It's drivel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:what is the point of this thread? what are people trying to argue? I read a bunch of pages and learned like nothing. I'm going to second the post that said that this whole thread and line of questioning is really stupid. And add that the thread's liable to just act as flame bait to out people with lovely beliefs at this point. I mean look how many posts on the last few pages alone are dedicated to justifying some lovely opinions. It was at least interesting as a thought experiment earlier on before people started making GBS threads it up with explanations on why they get to be dicks to other people who are part of a minority. Not so much now. If you meet someone in real life that is trans or not part of a traditional gender binary they're not going to say "REFER TO ME AS XER, SIR, YOU ARE INFRINGING ON MY RIGHTS" when you misgender them. No, they're going to either look uncomfortable (if they know you're being a willfully ignorant dick, as Commie Flanders was (Black face? Really?) going off of his posts) or just politely correct you with a simple male or female term they'd like to be referred by. You'd have to be mentally ill to think that having to learn a dozen new terms of address is anywhere close to reality. This hand wringing over bullshit like that is really the most obnoxiously disingenuous stuff. poo poo, the circuitous concern trolling from some of the people in this thread to justify not agreeing with the idea that someone has a right to be called or identified what they want to be is ridiculous all by itself. Archonex fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Mar 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:It's a basic day-to-day aspect of humanity that we don't even notice until we find someone disputing a trans person's gender, and it's never not been a jerk who can only tell from things the person can't control, even though what they're going for is obvious. The point is I guess that IRL, there are a lot of jerks around - including a lot with real political power. If you're just arguing it on a forum, then you have the luxury of looking at that thread in isolation. The other point is that it being a vanishing edge case or not, if you're asked by someone to gender them one way, you should - regardless of what they're doing or what they look like. Trans women are held to an unrealistic double standard of femininity in a lot of cases - they're expected to conform to a level of femininity that would not be asked for cis women - who are allowed to be tomboyish or even overtly masculine in their behaviour. Of course, they're not expected to be *too* feminine, otherwise "they're trying too hard and it's probably just a sex thing". It's pretty damned impolite saying "I'll define the standards by which I will deign to gender you appropriately - even after you've told me how you wish to be gendered". Particularly since people in the same situation who had found out that the person they were misgendering was cis would almost all be terribly apologetic and correct themselves. DeathMuffin fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Mar 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
TheWhiteNightmare posted:Oh I didn't realize the decision to assassinate King was the result of a national referendum The FBI was heavily involved in shutting down civil rights protests and civil rights leaders and had organized frequent investigations into Martin Luther King Jr. and even sent him anonymous threatening packages. 85% of COINTELPRO groups they targeted were groups and individuals aligned under the civil rights movement because they were "subversive." So literally yes, basically. There was a national security "risk" deemed on those peaceful protests. But continue to tell me how people supposedly catch flies with honey. edit: Most of you sound like you never learned more than the little paragraph in your American history book. The north was incredibly racist, too. It still is. It was widespread. The government was exceedingly hesitant at best on the issue, with the president openly calling Martin Luther King Jr. a liar. It wasn't ever just "one person" who was behind the assassination; Multiple attempts were taken on King's life and there was a huge wave of sentiment that spurred those people on. The rampant bigotry in society and in communities is part of what lead to it, and it was sanctioned by the government in how they were reacting. les enfants Terrific! fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Mar 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Atasnaya Vaflja posted:The FBI was heavily involved in shutting down civil rights protests and civil rights leaders and had organized frequent investigations into Martin Luther King Jr. and even sent him anonymous threatening packages. 85% of COINTELPRO groups they targeted were groups and individuals aligned under the civil rights movement because they were "subversive." Describing how King faced intense opposition does not logically lead to your conclusion that peaceful protest doesn't work because people had the means and motive to kill him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Izola Curry was an deep cover FBI stooge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
It certainly does prove that you don't earn any more "respect" with it, however, and bigots will still view you the same regardless. Opening your mouth while being in the minority is seen as being impolite and disrespectful. That's the point. No amount of kowtowing or gentleness will ever be seen as gentle enough when people just want you to sit down and shut up. People in this thread have demonstrated that point very well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Expecting the state and the establishment to play fair because you do is pretty laughable. "moral superiority" counts for very little without action. Civil Rights were achieved by the concerted action and refusal of those who wanted them to back down or be cowed by those who thought their actions were "inappropriate" or "not respectful enough". Those who believe in the justness of a cause will not be dissuaded by its proponents being angry, and those who are dissuaded were never concerned about justice to begin with. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Mar 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Nah. MLK was hated, but less so than his separatist contemporaries. He was idealized by the Very Serious People of his time and played the role of the reasonable actor who could be negotiated with. E: it takes two: Malcolm X to rebel and MLK to reconcile. E2:^ there are people in the center of your two extremes. These are the flies whom the honey catches. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Mar 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Nah. MLK was hated, but less so than his separatist contemporaries. He was idealized by the Very Serious People of his time and played the role of the reasonable actor who could be negotiated with. This. Though this is leading us further and further into a tangent potentially worthy of its own thread, comparing today's various protest movements to those of the '50s, '60s, and '70s, there is a dire dearth of leadership, and often even outright hostility to the idea of any one individual stepping forward to clearly articulate the aims of the movement and to create a dialog. Though there are several prominent figures who stand out, both Occupy and BLM limit themselves by refusing to be more than an outpouring of (often legitimate) popular outrage at the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
I dunno LGBT rights are doing pretty well IMO. Also having a leader kind of doesn't work when it's an alliance of many different people with different needs it becomes rather objectionable to have one or two people doing the negotiating for everyone. Also the idea of having to negotiate with the powerful is kind of backwards because many modern movements work by subverting the population at large rather than targeting the top. Doesn't really matter what the crusty old farts think when you can naturalize the young to the idea. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Mar 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
What's your point?OwlFancier posted:I dunno LGBT rights are doing pretty well IMO. The point isn't that MLK was an actual leader who negotiated with people or whatever. He was an ideological leader who stood for a set of principles, one of which was nonviolence. You can naturalize the young, but the old still wield the political power both as office holders and due to their numbers and propensity to vote. I don't believed that the LGBT movement is s good analogy for other types of civil rights movements because of the ubiquity of LGBT people. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Mar 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:What's your point? I guess I still don't really find the concern of those who harp on about respectability to be either compelling or sincere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
You don't think that it was prominent, respectable LGBT people who gave the LGBT movement it's legs? I can promise you that if the LGBT movement was nothing but pride parades and stonewall riots there wouldn't have been nearly the advances that the community has seen today.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
I don't believe in the Great People idea of history, no. The relentless efforts of LGBT people and organizations everywhere is what has succeeded in getting the idea accepted to the degree it has, and it is what will continue to advance the cause further.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
The point of talking about the decade between Brown v. Board and the Civil Rights Act is that it took a decade of people getting beaten and firehosed and attacked by dogs for public opinion to shift towards making a civil rights act politically possible, even with accepting the inevitable loss of the white South to the Democratic Party. That is, public opinion shifted slowly even with respectable victims and total pacifism.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 20:57
|
|
The Kingfish posted:You don't think that it was prominent, respectable LGBT people who gave the LGBT movement it's legs? I can promise you that if the LGBT movement was nothing but pride parades and stonewall riots there wouldn't have been nearly the advances that the community has seen today. You can't promise that, because that's not how history works, and you're not God. You ain't even the Demiurge, motherfucker.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The point of talking about the decade between Brown v. Board and the Civil Rights Act is that it took a decade of people getting beaten and firehosed and attacked by dogs for public opinion to shift towards making a civil rights act politically possible, even with accepting the inevitable loss of the white South to the Democratic Party. That is, public opinion shifted slowly even with respectable victims and total pacifism. But it shifted. E:^ cool it, retard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 20:59
|
|
The Kingfish posted:But it shifted. Nobody said otherwise. However, it was extremely ineffective because literal people literally getting murdered didn't translate into eroding opposition until a decade of it happening, and mass popular support didn't appear until after radicals had emerged.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't believe in the Great People idea of history, no. The relentless efforts of LGBT people and organizations everywhere is what has succeeded in getting the idea accepted to the degree it has, and it is what will continue to advance the cause further. The Great People model is deeply flawed, but that doesn't change the fact that history is full of great people. I'm not talking about the Great People model though, I'm talking about the thousands of brave, respectable people who were will to step forward as gay and lesbian before such a thing was more broadly accepted. I would never call Caitlyn Jenner a Great Person, but her public transition has done much for the trans community and the public transition of others in the future will do the same.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Nobody said otherwise. However, it was extremely ineffective because literal people literally getting murdered didn't translate into eroding opposition until a decade of it happening, and mass popular support didn't appear until after radicals had emerged. I said in my post that radicals are necessary alongside reconcilers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:12
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I said in my post that radicals are necessary alongside reconcilers. This is incompatible with respectability politics, you gibbering halfwit.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I'm not talking about the Great People model though, I'm talking about the thousands of brave, respectable people who were will to step forward as gay and lesbian before such a thing was more broadly accepted. Oh I'm sure that's what you would have called them at the time. Brave and respectable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:The Great People model is deeply flawed, but that doesn't change the fact that history is full of great people. Thus making them immediately unrespectable. Because that's the point, most LGBT people are simply that, L G B or T or any combination thereof, but by being that they are labelled as deviants and subhuman, and thus cannot be respectable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:07 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Thus making them immediately unrespectable. It causes cognitive dissonance in bigots. Respectable public figures and personal acquaintances gave pause to individuals who would never have supported gay rights if they didn't have these experiences.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:45
|
|