Options

The Ferguson Protests

194969899100

Posts

  • Options
    EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Privilege of any sort is lacking the ability (or more often, the desire) to look outside one's little reality bubble and see other people as people and not just supporting actors in one's personal play. You can argue semantics about what exactly privilege means, compare levels of suffering, and nit-pick to death, but that all is just a good way to talk around the ultimate problem which is that each and every one of us is inherently biased toward ourselves (or, in a few fringe cases, against ourselves), and until a person can recognize his or her tendency to view his or her own life as more valuable than everyone else's, nothing of value can be accomplished in this sort of discussion. If people want the benefits of a society, they need to start caring about what's best for the society, regardless of whether it's what's best for them personally.

    The reason semantics are important is that some people will think "privilege - n. a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people" and see your definition of "privileged - adv. lacking the ability (or more often, the desire) to look outside one's little reality bubble and see other people as people and not just supporting actors in one's personal play" and think you're arguing that everyone that fits the first definition also fits the second definition. Like, you can't be privileged without being privileged. You can see where the confusion comes from.

    That second definition/Bagel's definition is empathy, not privilege?

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    I don't understand what you are advocating, Paladin. None of those things you listed are privileges in the context of the term used here.

    The argument rings vaguely to the tune of the "but hypothetically one person could be abusing welfare so everyone is a cheat" rhetoric, which I'm not sure is your point or position. But it is how it feels on reading it.

    The reason it sounds that way is because those are in vacuo privileges that people you'd generally label as underprivileged enjoy. A malicious person could easily abide by the stipulation "use privilege only" and muddy the conversation because privilege only part of the whole picture.

    Look, easy example, Contregan, the brand name for thalidomide, was produced by a German pharmaceutical company initially for respiratory infections, but as a side they found that it was especially helpful for morning sickness. It gained widespread use across Europe with pregnant mothers, but was blocked by the anal-retentive FDA, though certain companies and obviously people with overseas connections were able to obtain it. Eventually, it was found to cause a very severe birth deformity that basically made you not grow arms and legs. If the privilege enjoyed by pregnant mothers who were lucky enough to get a fancy European medication that would help with their nausea led them to this, then of what use was the privilege?

    Sometimes, the system that endows general privilege is just plain broken. They may be ineffective or even harmful in some instances.

    But all this isn't the point. The original point was: if a person lacks the compassion or the basic facts that allow them to accurately understand and describe the plight of the less fortunate, is it because they were privileged or because they are ignorant?

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Privilege of any sort is lacking the ability (or more often, the desire) to look outside one's little reality bubble and see other people as people and not just supporting actors in one's personal play. You can argue semantics about what exactly privilege means, compare levels of suffering, and nit-pick to death, but that all is just a good way to talk around the ultimate problem which is that each and every one of us is inherently biased toward ourselves (or, in a few fringe cases, against ourselves), and until a person can recognize his or her tendency to view his or her own life as more valuable than everyone else's, nothing of value can be accomplished in this sort of discussion. If people want the benefits of a society, they need to start caring about what's best for the society, regardless of whether it's what's best for them personally.

    The reason semantics are important is that some people will think "privilege - n. a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people" and see your definition of "privileged - adv. lacking the ability (or more often, the desire) to look outside one's little reality bubble and see other people as people and not just supporting actors in one's personal play" and think you're arguing that everyone that fits the first definition also fits the second definition. Like, you can't be privileged without being privileged. You can see where the confusion comes from.

    That second definition/Bagel's definition is empathy, not privilege?

    Exactly! That is all I'm trying to say! Keep your definition of privilege when it is actually privilege, but when it is something else, don't call it privilege!

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    PoorochondriacPoorochondriac Ah, man Ah, jeezRegistered User regular
    Paladin what the hell are you even talking about any more?

    Are you intentionally trying to cloud and muddy the issue by being obtuse and digressive, or is the clouding and muddying just an accidental byproduct of being obtuse and digressive in your rhetoric

    I have to ask because you've been doing this same shit all thread long

  • Options
    OptyOpty Registered User regular
    There is merit to the concept of teaching people with privilege about it with kid gloves as if they were spoiled 3 year olds needing to be educated on why they need to share their toys with the other kids. Unfortunately too many people react to even that level of teaching negatively (just like 3 year olds) which is why the tone argument is so reviled by those who have already tried being nice and have gotten nowhere with it.

  • Options
    EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Paladin, I still don't understand your point beyond arguing semantics. These "muddy" situations concocted for your argument have little in common with discussions of race tensions in Ferguson or the plight of LGBTQ issues or the persistent double-standard held against women.

    People do not commonly or effectively use privilege to discuss whose schedule allows for best consistent obtaining of the closest parking stop at the grocery, or if said ability is still a privilege if that means by getting to the grocery earlier they get hit by a meteor that struck that specific spot. They use it to discuss if you even have a grocery store available to you and, if so, if you have the ability to enter without mass judgement, physical altercation, or the ability to even purchase something. I may be entirely misreading your point, but it seems the only thing muddying a pretty clear definition is your sort of argument here.

    Enc on
  • Options
    Virgil_Leads_YouVirgil_Leads_You Proud Father House GardenerRegistered User regular
    NeoToma wrote: »
    Why do you have to say MEAN things about the people who are murdering you? We're all humans, watch your tone, and try not to bleed on my privilege.
    "Why do you have to say mean things about people who aren't murdering you? We need more humans to stop murder." I honestly haven't really seen either examples in this thread, but I do sometime glaze over some of the wordier posts.

    Most of what I've seen is folk discussing, is privilege, in the context of Bill O'Rielly's cognitive dissidence. We've been discussing folk believing privilege isn't a thing, but also believing that white folk don't face racial biases or the effective fallout of racial biases.

    No one is being murdered by discussing why some folk in our society disengage when the term privilege comes up. No one is being murdered by discussing how to protect important concepts from becoming dismissed.

    VayBJ4e.png
  • Options
    LockoutLockout I am still searching Registered User regular
    Opty wrote: »
    There is merit to the concept of teaching people with privilege about it with kid gloves as if they were spoiled 3 year olds needing to be educated on why they need to share their toys with the other kids. Unfortunately too many people react to even that level of teaching negatively (just like 3 year olds) which is why the tone argument is so reviled by those who have already tried being nice and have gotten nowhere with it.

    if you have the patience of a saint, maintaining a measured tone and keeping the kid gloves on is a good strategy because those who still have an extremely negative reaction make the opposition look bad

    But I'll never try to tone police someone who's rightfully angry. It's ridiculous to expect everyone to keep a level head through mountains of bullshit.

    f24GSaF.jpg
  • Options
    Fire TruckFire Truck I love my SELFRegistered User regular
    NeoToma wrote: »
    Why do you have to say MEAN things about the people who are murdering you? We're all humans, watch your tone, and try not to bleed on my privilege.
    "Why do you have to say mean things about people who aren't murdering you? We need more humans to stop murder." I honestly haven't really seen either examples in this thread, but I do sometime glaze over some of the wordier posts.

    Most of what I've seen is folk discussing, is privilege, in the context of Bill O'Rielly's cognitive dissidence. We've been discussing folk believing privilege isn't a thing, but also believing that white folk don't face racial biases or the effective fallout of racial biases.

    No one is being murdered by discussing why some folk in our society disengage when the term privilege comes up. No one is being murdered by discussing how to protect important concepts from becoming dismissed.

    But the discussion of privilege is taking place in a wider context where people ARE being murdered, frequently. People disengaging when "privilege" comes up is an important cog in the machine that propagates that murder.

  • Options
    GoatmonGoatmon Companion of Kess Registered User regular
    Vivixenne wrote: »
    I find that discussing the concept of privilege with a lot of my white male friends usually results in me hearing about how sad and terrible their lives have been.

    but, but

    affirmative action!

    and my brother was turned down for a loan despite his whiteness!

    Switch Friend Code: SW-6680-6709-4204


  • Options
    EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    Fire Truck wrote: »
    NeoToma wrote: »
    Why do you have to say MEAN things about the people who are murdering you? We're all humans, watch your tone, and try not to bleed on my privilege.
    "Why do you have to say mean things about people who aren't murdering you? We need more humans to stop murder." I honestly haven't really seen either examples in this thread, but I do sometime glaze over some of the wordier posts.

    Most of what I've seen is folk discussing, is privilege, in the context of Bill O'Rielly's cognitive dissidence. We've been discussing folk believing privilege isn't a thing, but also believing that white folk don't face racial biases or the effective fallout of racial biases.

    No one is being murdered by discussing why some folk in our society disengage when the term privilege comes up. No one is being murdered by discussing how to protect important concepts from becoming dismissed.

    But the discussion of privilege is taking place in a wider context where people ARE being murdered, frequently. People disengaging when "privilege" comes up is an important cog in the machine that propagates that murder.

    That's what we've really been talking about, though. Ways to bring up privilege in a way that doesn't cause people to disengage and to instead think about things and (hopefully) gain some degree of understanding about how fucked up things are.

  • Options
    TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/08/27/north-korea-ferguson-was-a-disgrace-and-the-united-states-are-now-laughing-stock-of-the-world/

    In an article titled "DPRK Foreign Ministry Spokesman Terms U.S. Human Rights Abuser," North Korea state news agency KCNA has taken the U.S. to task for the problems that led to Ferguson and the police response to it. Here's how KCNA describes the case:

    Some days ago, a black teenager was shot to death by a white policeman in Ferguson City, Missouri State, the U.S. and police ruthlessly cracked down on protesters, leveling their rifles at them and firing tear gas and smoke shells. Against this backdrop, there occurred a shuddering incident in another city in which a policeman shot another young black man to death.

    The U.S. is, indeed, a country wantonly violating the human rights where people are subject to discrimination and humiliation due to their races and they are seized with such horror that they do not know when they are shot to death.

    After the initial criticism of the Ferguson situation, KCNA pulls back to a make a broader point about the United States: You have your own human rights problems, so stop criticizing us. The U.S. has "suffered disgrace" from Ferguson, KCNA says, and become a "a laughing stock of the world."

    Yeah, that's right, North Korea thinks we've gone too far.

  • Options
    WiseManTobesWiseManTobes Registered User regular
    There was a post in the last couple pages that I can't find now, it mentioned something like " They believe they aren't racist because they have/like KD"

    What is KD , because all I can think of is Kraft Dinner, and I know ( or at least hope ) that's not it

    Steam! Battlenet:Wisemantobes#1508
  • Options
    gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    my mother grew up during segregation and she has various horror stories to tell

    but she always reserved her deepest disgust not for those who were openly racist

    she hated those who pretended to sympathize, those who urged patience

    justice delayed is justice denied. and comfort is the enemy of progress.
    I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

    I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

    Martin Luther King Jr, "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"

  • Options
    ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning LoserdomRegistered User regular
    And really, the only thing having/liking KD proves with vis a vis racism is that you might not hate Canadians.

  • Options
    Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    reminds me of my favorite part about the occupy protests

    the various editorials by the 1% upset that people didn't like them

    it's so very very important to those in power to enjoy the adulation - or, failing that, the unspoken grumblings - of those they oppress

    nothing imbues panic among the privileged than open and blatant anger and disgust

    because having money is one thing

    being hated is quite another


    my mother grew up during segregation and she has various horror stories to tell

    but she always reserved her deepest disgust not for those who were openly racist

    she hated those who pretended to sympathize, those who urged patience

    justice delayed is justice denied. and comfort is the enemy of progress.

    http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • Options
    curly haired boycurly haired boy Your Friendly Neighborhood Torgue Dealer Registered User regular
    if there's any better example of how fucked human reasoning is than

    "stop criticizing me for my bullshit, you have your own bullshit"

    then i'd like to hear it

    it's all irrational posturing about image

    you will not find a single nation on this planet that doesn't have some heinous happenings in its past

    America's are widely known and are really fucking awful, and i mean really horrible

    but to pretend that nobody's a saint and that awful things should be ignored because hey, we're all bad guys here is FLAWED. we do it on the individual level, the local level, and the international level

    i'm sick of it, i'm sick of the human tendency to want to save face

    i'm sick of trying to feel better about horrible shit

    i'm sick of the fact that national pride means whitewashing history

    i'm sick of just how awful our brains are

    RxI0N.png
    Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
  • Options
    SticksSticks I'd rather be in bed.Registered User regular
    Privilege is interesting. Fixing it, from the point of view of the person who has it, is in many respects working against your own best interests. Ironically, it should be a perfect fit for Christians, in the compassion for your fellow man and working towards your rewards in heaven not on earth sense.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Paladin, I still don't understand your point beyond arguing semantics. These "muddy" situations concocted for your argument have little in common with discussions of race tensions in Ferguson or the plight of LGBTQ issues or the persistent double-standard held against women.

    People do not commonly or effectively use privilege to discuss whose schedule allows for best consistent obtaining of the closest parking stop at the grocery, or if said ability is still a privilege if that means by getting to the grocery earlier they get hit by a meteor that struck that specific spot. They use it to discuss if you even have a grocery store available to you and, if so, if you have the ability to enter without mass judgement, physical altercation, or the ability to even purchase something. I may be entirely misreading your point, but it seems the only thing muddying a pretty clear definition is your sort of argument here.

    The muddy situation is people drawing the wrong conclusions about this privilege deal and taking affront, which I believe is not actually a conflict of ideals. It's a communication issue that pushes everybody's buttons due to semantic misunderstanding. The challenge was put forth to try to find s better word, and I'm all about trying to find better words, whether or not I succeed, and in this case it's probably still out there.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    DoobhDoobh She/Her, Ace Pan/Bisexual 8-) What's up, bootlickers?Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Taramoor wrote: »
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/08/27/north-korea-ferguson-was-a-disgrace-and-the-united-states-are-now-laughing-stock-of-the-world/

    In an article titled "DPRK Foreign Ministry Spokesman Terms U.S. Human Rights Abuser," North Korea state news agency KCNA has taken the U.S. to task for the problems that led to Ferguson and the police response to it. Here's how KCNA describes the case:

    Some days ago, a black teenager was shot to death by a white policeman in Ferguson City, Missouri State, the U.S. and police ruthlessly cracked down on protesters, leveling their rifles at them and firing tear gas and smoke shells. Against this backdrop, there occurred a shuddering incident in another city in which a policeman shot another young black man to death.

    The U.S. is, indeed, a country wantonly violating the human rights where people are subject to discrimination and humiliation due to their races and they are seized with such horror that they do not know when they are shot to death.

    After the initial criticism of the Ferguson situation, KCNA pulls back to a make a broader point about the United States: You have your own human rights problems, so stop criticizing us. The U.S. has "suffered disgrace" from Ferguson, KCNA says, and become a "a laughing stock of the world."

    Yeah, that's right, North Korea thinks we've gone too far.

    Well, they say that a lot

    but we did do plenty of messed up shit in the Korean War, so it's not without reason

    Doobh on
    Miss me? Find me on:

    Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
    Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Sticks wrote: »
    Privilege is interesting. Fixing it, from the point of view of the person who has it, is in many respects working against your own best interests. Ironically, it should be a perfect fit for Christians, in the compassion for your fellow man and working towards your rewards in heaven not on earth sense.

    It only seems like it's working against your own best interests. In reality, fixing it so the underprivileged are truly equal makes things better for everybody.

    For instance, the Drug War. Obviously it disproportionately affects minorities, but there is definitely collateral damage.

  • Options
    DoobhDoobh She/Her, Ace Pan/Bisexual 8-) What's up, bootlickers?Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Paladin, I still don't understand your point beyond arguing semantics. These "muddy" situations concocted for your argument have little in common with discussions of race tensions in Ferguson or the plight of LGBTQ issues or the persistent double-standard held against women.

    People do not commonly or effectively use privilege to discuss whose schedule allows for best consistent obtaining of the closest parking stop at the grocery, or if said ability is still a privilege if that means by getting to the grocery earlier they get hit by a meteor that struck that specific spot. They use it to discuss if you even have a grocery store available to you and, if so, if you have the ability to enter without mass judgement, physical altercation, or the ability to even purchase something. I may be entirely misreading your point, but it seems the only thing muddying a pretty clear definition is your sort of argument here.

    The muddy situation is people drawing the wrong conclusions about this privilege deal and taking affront, which I believe is not actually a conflict of ideals. It's a communication issue that pushes everybody's buttons due to semantic misunderstanding. The challenge was put forth to try to find s better word, and I'm all about trying to find better words, whether or not I succeed, and in this case it's probably still out there.

    I can't see you ending up anywhere that isn't insulting to at least one side of the argument

    Miss me? Find me on:

    Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
    Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
  • Options
    SticksSticks I'd rather be in bed.Registered User regular
    Sticks wrote: »
    Privilege is interesting. Fixing it, from the point of view of the person who has it, is in many respects working against your own best interests. Ironically, it should be a perfect fit for Christians, in the compassion for your fellow man and working towards your rewards in heaven not on earth sense.

    It only seems like it's working against your own best interests. In reality, fixing it so the underprivileged are truly equal makes things better for everybody.

    For instance, the Drug War. Obviously it disproportionately affects minorities, but there is definitely collateral damage.

    Well no, there are definite benefits to be a card carrying member of the dominant group that would necessarily have to go away to fix inequality. There are some negatives to living a society with inequality, but they aren't nearly as obvious to the dominant group. That and the fact that privilege itself is often invisible to the person who has it make education on the topic really important to fixing it. It's working up hill against a lot of our more selfish instincts.

  • Options
    SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    Regarding the tone thing, I've felt conflicted about that, because on the one hand it does seem like being patient and calm can help with getting people to understand (especially if they are observing the conversation), but on the other hand telling people with legitimate grievances that they should just chill out seems super dumb (both because they're often the movers and because it's super dumb).

    Then I had the thought that this might be a good way to use my privilege, since I don't have much to contribute otherwise: I can be the calm, patient, chill voice in circles where this whole privilege thing is still a radical concept, because goodness knows I can afford to be. It's not like I've had a lifetime of putting up with stuff to wear out my patience (which is not to say that there aren't people who have and yet are still patient; they're just amazing).

    And it's STILL dang hard to not break out in snark.

    So anyway, for all y'all who want to see more polite discourse... just go and make some.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Dubh wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Paladin, I still don't understand your point beyond arguing semantics. These "muddy" situations concocted for your argument have little in common with discussions of race tensions in Ferguson or the plight of LGBTQ issues or the persistent double-standard held against women.

    People do not commonly or effectively use privilege to discuss whose schedule allows for best consistent obtaining of the closest parking stop at the grocery, or if said ability is still a privilege if that means by getting to the grocery earlier they get hit by a meteor that struck that specific spot. They use it to discuss if you even have a grocery store available to you and, if so, if you have the ability to enter without mass judgement, physical altercation, or the ability to even purchase something. I may be entirely misreading your point, but it seems the only thing muddying a pretty clear definition is your sort of argument here.

    The muddy situation is people drawing the wrong conclusions about this privilege deal and taking affront, which I believe is not actually a conflict of ideals. It's a communication issue that pushes everybody's buttons due to semantic misunderstanding. The challenge was put forth to try to find s better word, and I'm all about trying to find better words, whether or not I succeed, and in this case it's probably still out there.

    I can't see you ending up anywhere that isn't insulting to at least one side of the argument

    Then I'll have failed, because my objective is to prevent people from accidentally insulting each other over topics to which they are amenable

    That's why I do these dumb word arguments; you can trace all of them to a single semantic misstep

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    captainkcaptaink TexasRegistered User regular
    Taramoor wrote: »
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/08/27/north-korea-ferguson-was-a-disgrace-and-the-united-states-are-now-laughing-stock-of-the-world/

    In an article titled "DPRK Foreign Ministry Spokesman Terms U.S. Human Rights Abuser," North Korea state news agency KCNA has taken the U.S. to task for the problems that led to Ferguson and the police response to it. Here's how KCNA describes the case:

    Some days ago, a black teenager was shot to death by a white policeman in Ferguson City, Missouri State, the U.S. and police ruthlessly cracked down on protesters, leveling their rifles at them and firing tear gas and smoke shells. Against this backdrop, there occurred a shuddering incident in another city in which a policeman shot another young black man to death.

    The U.S. is, indeed, a country wantonly violating the human rights where people are subject to discrimination and humiliation due to their races and they are seized with such horror that they do not know when they are shot to death.

    After the initial criticism of the Ferguson situation, KCNA pulls back to a make a broader point about the United States: You have your own human rights problems, so stop criticizing us. The U.S. has "suffered disgrace" from Ferguson, KCNA says, and become a "a laughing stock of the world."

    Yeah, that's right, North Korea thinks we've gone too far.

    I doubt that North Korea (the government) cares too much about the fate of Michael Brown. I think they see an opportunity to score some easy points.

  • Options
    TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    captaink wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/08/27/north-korea-ferguson-was-a-disgrace-and-the-united-states-are-now-laughing-stock-of-the-world/

    In an article titled "DPRK Foreign Ministry Spokesman Terms U.S. Human Rights Abuser," North Korea state news agency KCNA has taken the U.S. to task for the problems that led to Ferguson and the police response to it. Here's how KCNA describes the case:

    Some days ago, a black teenager was shot to death by a white policeman in Ferguson City, Missouri State, the U.S. and police ruthlessly cracked down on protesters, leveling their rifles at them and firing tear gas and smoke shells. Against this backdrop, there occurred a shuddering incident in another city in which a policeman shot another young black man to death.

    The U.S. is, indeed, a country wantonly violating the human rights where people are subject to discrimination and humiliation due to their races and they are seized with such horror that they do not know when they are shot to death.

    After the initial criticism of the Ferguson situation, KCNA pulls back to a make a broader point about the United States: You have your own human rights problems, so stop criticizing us. The U.S. has "suffered disgrace" from Ferguson, KCNA says, and become a "a laughing stock of the world."

    Yeah, that's right, North Korea thinks we've gone too far.

    I doubt that North Korea (the government) cares too much about the fate of Michael Brown. I think they see an opportunity to score some easy points.

    Yes, they're North Korea, yes they're just doing this so they can ring the US's doorbell and run away, but none of that changes the fact that everything they said is true.

  • Options
    captainkcaptaink TexasRegistered User regular
    Taramoor wrote: »
    captaink wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/08/27/north-korea-ferguson-was-a-disgrace-and-the-united-states-are-now-laughing-stock-of-the-world/

    In an article titled "DPRK Foreign Ministry Spokesman Terms U.S. Human Rights Abuser," North Korea state news agency KCNA has taken the U.S. to task for the problems that led to Ferguson and the police response to it. Here's how KCNA describes the case:

    Some days ago, a black teenager was shot to death by a white policeman in Ferguson City, Missouri State, the U.S. and police ruthlessly cracked down on protesters, leveling their rifles at them and firing tear gas and smoke shells. Against this backdrop, there occurred a shuddering incident in another city in which a policeman shot another young black man to death.

    The U.S. is, indeed, a country wantonly violating the human rights where people are subject to discrimination and humiliation due to their races and they are seized with such horror that they do not know when they are shot to death.

    After the initial criticism of the Ferguson situation, KCNA pulls back to a make a broader point about the United States: You have your own human rights problems, so stop criticizing us. The U.S. has "suffered disgrace" from Ferguson, KCNA says, and become a "a laughing stock of the world."

    Yeah, that's right, North Korea thinks we've gone too far.

    I doubt that North Korea (the government) cares too much about the fate of Michael Brown. I think they see an opportunity to score some easy points.

    Yes, they're North Korea, yes they're just doing this so they can ring the US's doorbell and run away, but none of that changes the fact that everything they said is true.

    It is true, no doubt. I just don't think it's very sincere.

  • Options
    SticksSticks I'd rather be in bed.Registered User regular
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Regarding the tone thing, I've felt conflicted about that, because on the one hand it does seem like being patient and calm can help with getting people to understand (especially if they are observing the conversation), but on the other hand telling people with legitimate grievances that they should just chill out seems super dumb (both because they're often the movers and because it's super dumb).

    Then I had the thought that this might be a good way to use my privilege, since I don't have much to contribute otherwise: I can be the calm, patient, chill voice in circles where this whole privilege thing is still a radical concept, because goodness knows I can afford to be. It's not like I've had a lifetime of putting up with stuff to wear out my patience (which is not to say that there aren't people who have and yet are still patient; they're just amazing).

    And it's STILL dang hard to not break out in snark.

    So anyway, for all y'all who want to see more polite discourse... just go and make some.

    That's actually a good way to look at it. Polite and calm help, but no one person should be required to be polite or calm in all circumstances. Particularly when they're on the short end of the stick.

    Us slightly-more-aware privileged folk can shoulder some of that grunt work of answering the same basic questions over and over to help educate the rest of our kind.

  • Options
    UnbrokenEvaUnbrokenEva HIGH ON THE WIRE BUT I WON'T TRIP ITRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Dubh wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Paladin, I still don't understand your point beyond arguing semantics. These "muddy" situations concocted for your argument have little in common with discussions of race tensions in Ferguson or the plight of LGBTQ issues or the persistent double-standard held against women.

    People do not commonly or effectively use privilege to discuss whose schedule allows for best consistent obtaining of the closest parking stop at the grocery, or if said ability is still a privilege if that means by getting to the grocery earlier they get hit by a meteor that struck that specific spot. They use it to discuss if you even have a grocery store available to you and, if so, if you have the ability to enter without mass judgement, physical altercation, or the ability to even purchase something. I may be entirely misreading your point, but it seems the only thing muddying a pretty clear definition is your sort of argument here.

    The muddy situation is people drawing the wrong conclusions about this privilege deal and taking affront, which I believe is not actually a conflict of ideals. It's a communication issue that pushes everybody's buttons due to semantic misunderstanding. The challenge was put forth to try to find s better word, and I'm all about trying to find better words, whether or not I succeed, and in this case it's probably still out there.

    I can't see you ending up anywhere that isn't insulting to at least one side of the argument

    Then I'll have failed, because my objective is to prevent people from accidentally insulting each other over topics to which they are amenable

    That's why I do these dumb word arguments; you can trace all of them to a single semantic misstep

    It seems like maybe you can't, and your belief that disagreements like this are just waiting for you to "solve" them is arrogant, and trivializes the issue being discussed.

  • Options
    DoobhDoobh She/Her, Ace Pan/Bisexual 8-) What's up, bootlickers?Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Dubh wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Paladin, I still don't understand your point beyond arguing semantics. These "muddy" situations concocted for your argument have little in common with discussions of race tensions in Ferguson or the plight of LGBTQ issues or the persistent double-standard held against women.

    People do not commonly or effectively use privilege to discuss whose schedule allows for best consistent obtaining of the closest parking stop at the grocery, or if said ability is still a privilege if that means by getting to the grocery earlier they get hit by a meteor that struck that specific spot. They use it to discuss if you even have a grocery store available to you and, if so, if you have the ability to enter without mass judgement, physical altercation, or the ability to even purchase something. I may be entirely misreading your point, but it seems the only thing muddying a pretty clear definition is your sort of argument here.

    The muddy situation is people drawing the wrong conclusions about this privilege deal and taking affront, which I believe is not actually a conflict of ideals. It's a communication issue that pushes everybody's buttons due to semantic misunderstanding. The challenge was put forth to try to find s better word, and I'm all about trying to find better words, whether or not I succeed, and in this case it's probably still out there.

    I can't see you ending up anywhere that isn't insulting to at least one side of the argument

    Then I'll have failed, because my objective is to prevent people from accidentally insulting each other over topics to which they are amenable

    That's why I do these dumb word arguments; you can trace all of them to a single semantic misstep

    you're trying to "correct" language already used in academic discourse

    Miss me? Find me on:

    Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
    Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
  • Options
    Randy ButternubbsRandy Butternubbs Registered User regular
    There was a post in the last couple pages that I can't find now, it mentioned something like " They believe they aren't racist because they have/like KD"

    What is KD , because all I can think of is Kraft Dinner, and I know ( or at least hope ) that's not it

    Sorry, it's a sports thing, KD=Kevin Durant. My already lame joke is now the lamest. I am great shame.

  • Options
    TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    There was a post in the last couple pages that I can't find now, it mentioned something like " They believe they aren't racist because they have/like KD"

    What is KD , because all I can think of is Kraft Dinner, and I know ( or at least hope ) that's not it

    Sorry, it's a sports thing, KD=Kevin Durant. My already lame joke is now the lamest. I am great shame.

    It's okay, I was going to say "I can't be racist, I listen to Macklemore".

  • Options
    Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    I assumed that KD was a rapper

    I am the racistest of them all

    [Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Dubh wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Dubh wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Paladin, I still don't understand your point beyond arguing semantics. These "muddy" situations concocted for your argument have little in common with discussions of race tensions in Ferguson or the plight of LGBTQ issues or the persistent double-standard held against women.

    People do not commonly or effectively use privilege to discuss whose schedule allows for best consistent obtaining of the closest parking stop at the grocery, or if said ability is still a privilege if that means by getting to the grocery earlier they get hit by a meteor that struck that specific spot. They use it to discuss if you even have a grocery store available to you and, if so, if you have the ability to enter without mass judgement, physical altercation, or the ability to even purchase something. I may be entirely misreading your point, but it seems the only thing muddying a pretty clear definition is your sort of argument here.

    The muddy situation is people drawing the wrong conclusions about this privilege deal and taking affront, which I believe is not actually a conflict of ideals. It's a communication issue that pushes everybody's buttons due to semantic misunderstanding. The challenge was put forth to try to find s better word, and I'm all about trying to find better words, whether or not I succeed, and in this case it's probably still out there.

    I can't see you ending up anywhere that isn't insulting to at least one side of the argument

    Then I'll have failed, because my objective is to prevent people from accidentally insulting each other over topics to which they are amenable

    That's why I do these dumb word arguments; you can trace all of them to a single semantic misstep

    you're trying to "correct" language already used in academic discourse

    Academic language changes all the time if there's a good reason. Only peripherally relevant example: granulomatosis with polyangiitis . Not analogous to the situation, just trivia.

    Some people equate privilege with refusal to acknowledge it. I call the latter ignorance, whose crimes extend beyond privilege. Same concept, same solution, different word.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    I would argue that accusing someone of being ignorant is far more likely to make them immediately dismiss the words that follow than saying that someone is speaking from a position of privilege.

  • Options
    SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Dubh wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Dubh wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Paladin, I still don't understand your point beyond arguing semantics. These "muddy" situations concocted for your argument have little in common with discussions of race tensions in Ferguson or the plight of LGBTQ issues or the persistent double-standard held against women.

    People do not commonly or effectively use privilege to discuss whose schedule allows for best consistent obtaining of the closest parking stop at the grocery, or if said ability is still a privilege if that means by getting to the grocery earlier they get hit by a meteor that struck that specific spot. They use it to discuss if you even have a grocery store available to you and, if so, if you have the ability to enter without mass judgement, physical altercation, or the ability to even purchase something. I may be entirely misreading your point, but it seems the only thing muddying a pretty clear definition is your sort of argument here.

    The muddy situation is people drawing the wrong conclusions about this privilege deal and taking affront, which I believe is not actually a conflict of ideals. It's a communication issue that pushes everybody's buttons due to semantic misunderstanding. The challenge was put forth to try to find s better word, and I'm all about trying to find better words, whether or not I succeed, and in this case it's probably still out there.

    I can't see you ending up anywhere that isn't insulting to at least one side of the argument

    Then I'll have failed, because my objective is to prevent people from accidentally insulting each other over topics to which they are amenable

    That's why I do these dumb word arguments; you can trace all of them to a single semantic misstep

    you're trying to "correct" language already used in academic discourse

    Academic language changes all the time if there's a good reason. Only peripherally relevant example: granulomatosis with polyangiitis . Not analogous to the situation, just trivia.

    Some people equate privilege with refusal to acknowledge it. I call the latter ignorance, whose crimes extend beyond privilege. Same concept, same solution, different word.
    I don't think anybody has equated those things. The latter is one of the "benefits" of the former, in that being unaware of or being able to deny privilege is almost exclusively a luxury for those that have it.

  • Options
    TheySlashThemTheySlashThem Registered User regular
    why do people still respond to paladin?

  • Options
    OmnipotentBagelOmnipotentBagel floof Registered User regular
    The point I was trying to make is that understanding and accepting privilege as a concept requires a degree of self awareness and care for others that does not come naturally. People of privilege tend to resist the conversation because it's threatening their very world view. Getting stuck in arguments about the word itself is exactly the kind of defense mechanism that comes up to distract from the actual problem

    cdci44qazyo3.gif

  • Options
    XehalusXehalus Registered User regular
    my local police is putting out ads about having a number you can call to report abuse of power and stating their mission is to serve the public

    I hope this is a trend

This discussion has been closed.