Neurolimal posted:

He was against the name, for obvious reasons. It's an adversarial term that was vilified long ago. Find a way to reform the word and he would have no issues.

It's both. Because they intersect. And there is no line in the sand demanding one or the other.

Grognan posted:

There seems to be a lot to unpack in this statement about what you think he's saying, and the fact that even if he did say that specifically that he isn't wrong?

loving people with bats is not an improvement on anything unless you just want to hurt an acceptable target that's been designated a bad person to you. Which to be fair, is a pretty human position to take, in high school.

bag em and tag em posted:

Sure, but when Conservatives are accused on being Nazis because white supremacists start spouting support for their candidates, they get on TV, they say "I disavow the neo-nazi guys over there," and then they move on. Visibly denouncing the fringe is important AND we as liberals demand and expect conservatives to do that. Sure we'll turn around and say it wasn't enough, and turn it into part of the political game but whatever.

I get that we should HAVE to do that, again, I understand and agree with what you're saying. But if you're trying to reach someone who only kind of agrees with you and kind of agrees with the other side too, you're playing an entirely different game and political theater matters.

Main Paineframe posted:

I don't see how that's relevant, unless you're denying that sundown towns have ever existed.

Crowsbeak posted:

You made the claim, now back it up.

Main Paineframe posted:

Wait, what? Are you seriously taking issue with the assertion that sundown towns ever existed? Is that really the hill you want to die on?

rkajdi posted:

Bullshit. Both create inconsistency. A law unequally applied cannot be just by definition. The real solution is to get the unqualified chud morons out of there and have professionals do the job instead. I know this goes against the anti-intellectual movement of the day, but qualified people make better decisions than morons who don't know the subject. We see it in science and academia (or at least understand that the idiots are to be derided and ignored) so why the hell can't we see it in politics and law? If you want a change later, you can institute it from the top down and just displace the uncooperative people from the system in one fell swoop. You can't do that with juries, and will continue to gently caress minorities over far more than it will help.

Also, how does nullification stop stand your ground (or any unjust law) consistently? If you're not doing it 10 times out of 10, all you're doing is still screwing over people while reducing the incentive to actually fix the problem. You fix law problem with judicial decisions and legislative change, not lawless bullshit where some idiot who probably doesn't understand all the law being dealt with decides he doesn't agree with the written law. Our ancestors (or I guess those of us who are Europeans) fought and died to have laws written down. But unless everything is objectively handled, you might as well not even have bothered, since some working class hero can come behind and gently caress it all up based on nothing but his uneducated opinions.

Main Paineframe posted:

Wait, what? Are you seriously taking issue with the assertion that sundown towns ever existed? Is that really the hill you want to die on?

stone cold posted:

Sanders said: "No, I don’t think so. First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive. The real issue is when we look at the poverty rate among the African American community, when we look at the high unemployment rate within the African American community, we have a lot of work to do.

So I think what we should be talking about is making massive investments in rebuilding our cities, in creating millions of decent paying jobs, in making public colleges and universities tuition-free, basically targeting our federal resources to the areas where it is needed the most and where it is needed the most is in impoverished communities, often African American and Latino."

Sanders here is explicitly against actual reparations. Also, how many times has Sanders voiced support for John Conyers' H.R. 40: Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act? Should John Conyers stop proposing the same bill every year because "it won't pass?"

But here's the deal, how does creating jobs and making college tuition free help eliminate discriminatory hiring practices, help victims of mass-incarceration be able to live their lives?

I question the notion of the descendants of slavery living in poverty as being a class thing, given that the line in the sand was drawn that people were slaves in this country based on race. White indentured servants were not slaves. White poverty is of an entirely different character than black poverty.

rkajdi posted:

Considering the Klan is a terrorist organization, yeah I think the solution is send them to prison when they commit a crime, and make sure they are economically and politically disenfranchised when they get out-- assuming they should even be let out. There's no reason I should be standing up for someone who is going to screw me over the second they have a chance. It's why I don't support the ACLU, but do support the SPLC and Planned Parenthood.

I also didn't literally mean loving the Klansmen with a bat. But I do think that terrorism should be dramatically more severely punished than some kid who gets busted with a crackpipe. Maybe I was misread what was being said, but it sounded to me like Neuroliminal was looking for better treatment for someone who committed a worse crime.

Neurolimal posted:

He's taking umbrance with your original statement, that they are still a threat.

Neurolimal posted:

So you are refuting my post that he has issue with the name by....posting a quote where he finds it "divisive" and goes on to basically advocate everything in TNC's concept of reparations, outright saying "we need more programs and money in downtrodden towns, many of which are minority towns". And this was before he hired a BLM activist to help draft his social justice plank.

This goes back to my statement a page back, that certain segments seem to make enemies of anyone and everyone that doesn't 100% agree with them in every way and every word.


Actually, torture is bad, unrehabilitative prisons are bad, and revenge justice is bad.

Remember when there were posters critical of my judgement that this attitude would result in social leftists that are OK with capital punishment?

Neurolimal posted:

Remember when there were posters critical of my judgement that this attitude would result in social leftists that are OK with capital punishment?

stone cold posted:

Cool your persecution complex.

Crowsbeak posted:

stone cold posted:

You should maybe go gently caress off, since you literally don't think that cops get off for murdering POC all the goddamn time. That's not a persecution complex, that's the goddamn reality in America right now.

stone cold posted:

You should maybe go gently caress off, since you literally don't think that cops get off for murdering POC all the goddamn time. That's not a persecution complex, that's the goddamn reality in America right now.

Main Paineframe posted:

The same goes for other policies. When someone calls on the fiscal left to denounce Maoist Third-Worldists, what they're really saying is "look, the fiscal left holds such awful policies that they attract the support of deplorable extremists like those; let's see if they're even willing to pretend otherwise". Same goes for the "social left", too - when someone calls on civil rights advocates to denounce people who post "kill all white people" on Facebook, they're really just implying that anti-racism advocates are secretly laying the foundation for white genocide. No one who insists that a movement denounce some fringe group intends to actually believe the denunciation - either it'll be declared not good enough, or it'll be regarded as a thinly disguised token move that no one believes.

Crowsbeak posted:

Look the police in this country are bad, but they are not all looking to gun down any non white at a moments notice. They are a bad organization but they are not the KKK. Also the terrorist who attacked the Iman is in custody.

Crowsbeak posted:

1. Yes that is an issue that requires people be activie in their communities and put pressure on police departments to act.
2. Generally when someone murders two people in broad daylight they get convicted.

Crowsbeak posted:

I actually did, its just that I think we shouldn't get the pitchforks out over Slager yet until the second trial happens. Look I know you think because I don't agree with you 100% I must be a nazi or something.

the trump tutelage posted:

"You're either with us or you're against us" is an extremely productive mentality, especially when you're in the minority.

Main Paineframe posted:

The same goes for other policies. When someone calls on the fiscal left to denounce Maoist Third-Worldists, what they're really saying is "look, the fiscal left holds such awful policies that they attract the support of deplorable extremists like those; let's see if they're even willing to pretend otherwise". Same goes for the "social left", too - when someone calls on civil rights advocates to denounce people who post "kill all white people" on Facebook, they're really just implying that anti-racism advocates are secretly laying the foundation for white genocide. No one who insists that a movement denounce some fringe group intends to actually believe the denunciation - either it'll be declared not good enough, or it'll be regarded as a thinly disguised token move that no one believes.

stone cold posted:

Can you cite actual case law?

E: what I mean to say is I'd be interested in reading about the cases where jury nullification wasn't used to acquit POC murderers

rkajdi posted:

Agreed. I have a lot less respect for civil liberties as they are defined, since they often are stilted so that the neutral position is incredibly regressive by default. And again, I don't see why entrusting anything to the hoi polloi without a democratic check seems like a good idea after we just saw how that resulted.

stone cold posted:

Can you cite actual case law?

E: what I mean to say is I'd be interested in reading about the cases where jury nullification wasn't used to acquit POC murderers

Thug Lessons posted:

Reparations becomes insanity when you start to look outside the US and realize that the world is filled with countries that have spent the last two hundred years oppressing, terrorizing and killing their minorities. The black American experience is not a unique one, and if they have a right to have the historical and ongoing injustices perpetrated against them righted through cash payment by the ethnic groups that oppressed them then so does every other minority that's spend the last few centuries being brutalized. The problem is that a world where you actually try to enforce that right is a world being drowned in rivers of blood, repaying injustice with injustice and perpetuating a new round of ethnic conflict even more violent than the last. Historical injustice in a broad sense can never be righted. We can only correct ongoing injustice through the conventional ways: self-determination, equality under national and international law, and strict respect for all people's human rights.

Of course, there's people who want to do the latter and call it reparations. This seems really stupid to me. It's not reparations because it doesn't pay for or correct historical injustice in any sense. It needlessly racializes what's not actually a racial issue so that the supporters of reparations can feel that warm reparations feeling in their hearts, while simultaneously making those programs much harder, if not impossible to achieve. You might be able to convince Americans to enact socialism, but if it's framed as the 88% of Americans who aren't black paying the 12% who are reparations then you're almost certain to lose.

Neurolimal posted:

Actually, torture is bad, unrehabilitative prisons are bad, and revenge justice is bad.

Remember when there were posters critical of my judgement that this attitude would result in social leftists that are OK with capital punishment?

bag em and tag em posted:

Okay but a huge point of idpol is "words matter." We have to watch what we say and be careful not to say things that are offensive and if anyone says something that even possibly maybe slightly a little bit could be offensive it's a week long scandal with public apologies and hand wringing. When fringe leftists then turn around and say stuff like "kill whitey" and suddenly we're all supposed to go "oh well I'm not going to address that because it would distract from the message" that's when people leaning towards the center tune idpol out and start to feel hostile to it because on the surface that feels like a huge hypocrisy and to someone who isn't already in agreement with the Left it's a huge turn off to listening to liberal messaging.

Sethex posted:

How about before we all agree to ditch a process that operates like a safety valve against legalistic tyranny, you an the other posters that share your views show us the case law or evidence demonstrating the % of cases that negatively impact minorities in the justice system?

To my knowledge recently a lot of those nullifications have been communal rejection of prohibition and more recently of drug charges.

Sharkopath posted:

Reparations are never going to happen but also neither will federal level economic redevelopment of black communities and schooling. It's moot either way but I will always support people trying to alleviate the situation with the small power they can muster.

stone cold posted:

Posting where you downplay police murders of POC, or that you think it is incumbent on minorities to fix police departments is what makes you a racist, not disagreeing with me. Try being less fragile.

Johnnie5 posted:

A jury is the democratic check you fuckwit.

the trump tutelage posted:

"You're either with us or you're against us" is an extremely productive mentality, especially when you're in the minority.

Main Paineframe posted:

Do I condone the literal mass-murder of white people? Of course not. But sarcastic "kill whitey" Facebook posts are not nearly as bad as leaving a noose in a black kid's desk at school, and anyone who insists on creating a false equivalence between the two is pretty obviously not arguing in good faith.

Thug Lessons posted:

I don't agree at all. If I thought any sort of positive change was impossible I wouldn't waste my time being a leftist. I do think positive change is possible though, which is why I don't support programs that make such change harder on the grounds of sanctimonious and wrong-headed moralism.