User loginLive Discussions
Google searchMost popular threads
Weekly Archives
Blog linksAfrican American Political Pundit |
We readTip jarThe Public LibraryReality checksNews sourcesLink CollectionsDropping KnowledgeLibrary of Congress African American Odyssey Who's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 2 users and 13 guests online.
Online users
...Syndicate |
Dennis Prager is sooooo arrogantSubmitted by Prometheus 6 on November 14, 2005 - 9:23am.
on Onward the Theocracy! | War Fool wrote this nonsense
...like he's embarrassed to think in public. Black folks got tired of mainstream folks...Abe Foxman in particular...running this particular line on us. Old heads will remember well..."I publically call on Black leaders to repudiate whoever pissed me off!" It ain't gonna work in the Middle East either. First question:
Possibly because the Palestinians are at war? Possibly because their opponents have racked up a Palestinian non-combatant body count terrorists can only dream of matching? Not to mention his claim is a lie.Check Muslims against Terrorism. Or the Free Muslim Coalition. Or Islam Denounces Terrorism. Or this vast collection of links compiled by the Study of Islam Section at the American Academy of Religion.
Mr. Prager apparently has access to the decennial census records of terrorist organizations. Pinhead.
What you see depends on where you look...and who is looking. For instance, Freedom House's definition of an electoral democracy:
...really does seem to exclude the United States. Think anyone noticed? Then there's the civil liberties rating:
The USofA should get about a 4, but it's received a 1 from the beginning of the annual report. I'm writing as a Black guy here. White folks' mileage may vary.
ahem
Finally
Same reason we do.
We love our religious extremists in the USofA. Yes, we do. Leave any particular challenger or stated challenge aside for the moment. If some group of people is proving dangerous, in that they're killing other people in significant quantities, the victim class will be motivated to get the killing stopped. When the group which includes the killers is civilized, all goes well. They cooperate in indentifying the killing individuals, which are isolated from the potential to kill again. When, for various reasons the group which includes the killers is unable or unwilling to provide any means to distinguish benign members from killers, the victim class will, quite logically, come to treat the entire group with suspicion. As killings persist, the suspicion of the entire group intensifies. Somewhere along the way the group becomes challenged by the victim class to "cooperate or else". Early variants of that challenge tend to issued by individuals with no enforcment potential and random diplomatic skill. Later versions gain teeth.
Do fundamentalist Christians have an obligation to "cooperate in identifying" dangerous anti-abortion protesters? Do white people have an obligation to "cooperate in identifying" potentially deadly racists? Do police officers have a similar obligation to "cooperate in identifying" other officers who have the potential to abuse arrestees? What if people you identify as "members of the killing group" don't see the boundary lines between groups the same way you do? What if they see themselves as members of the "victim group" and not the "killing group"? I think you're peddling a variation on the "you're either with us or against us" bromide. If some group of people is proving dangerous, in that they're killing other people in significant quantities, the victim class will be motivated to get the killing stopped. Okay, but why should this seemingly reasonable desire place a responsibility on Muslims to account for or explain the anti-social behavior of other Muslims? By the way, it is disingenuous in the extreme for you to refer to the white French as the victim class. The French Minister of the Interior, who has a great deal of enforcement power and perhaps less diplomatic skill, was quick to come out of the gate with a "cooperate or else" edict. Do fundamentalist Christians have an obligation to "cooperate in identifying" dangerous anti-abortion protesters? Fuckin' A. The more anti-abortion, the more obligated. And they do. (this is a direct analog) Do white people have an obligation to "cooperate in identifying" potentially deadly racists? Do police officers have a similar obligation to "cooperate in identifying" other officers who have the potential to abuse arrestees? Not the same.. What if people you identify as "members of the killing group" don't see the boundary lines between groups the same way you do? What if they see themselves as members of the "victim group" and not the "killing group"? It's not a matter of how they see themselves, it's a matter of how the victims see them, combined with the power of the victims to do anything about it. It's not something which can easily be misunderstood, either. Further, it is ALWAYS within the power of the group to isolate and expose the murderers. I think you're peddling a variation on the "you're either with us or against us" bromide. Could be. Maybe there's an occasion for that. Okay, but why should this seemingly reasonable desire place a responsibility on Muslims to account for or explain the anti-social behavior of other Muslims? They don't have to explain the behavior at all. They only have to explain how we can tell the dangerous ones from the benign ones. By the way, it is disingenuous in the extreme for you to refer to the white French as the victim class. I thought we were discussing murderers? For all the nonsense, the recent riots don't qualify as terrorism or murder that I know of. I was referring to things including 911, the murder of Theo Van Gough, the palestinian suicide bombers, the Jordainian thing...
I admit that, disconnected from reality per your request, your position is logically coherant. You had your moment yet? They don't have to explain the behavior at all. They only have to explain how we can tell the dangerous ones from the benign ones.
DW, let me tell you a little story. Many, many years ago I attended a professional cooking school run by a maritme union to learn how to cook on passenger ships and freighters. All of the cooking instructors were born and trained in Europe. One of the students in the school and I became pretty good friends. At least we were good enough friends for me to have brought him by my parents' home and introduced them to him. We saw each other a few times after we had shipped out and discovered that the seafaring life was not for us. Then as friends often do we sort of lost track of each other. One day my friend called my parents' house looking for me but he didn't give my dad a number where I could reach him. About six weeks later my dad called me and asked if I had read the newspaper that morning. I reminded him that I was living in the mountains in Feather River Canyon and I didn't have access to a television or a newspaper and the nearest towns, Chico and Oroville, were about 25 miles away. My dad chuckled and said that I should get my hands on a paper (he meant the San Francisco Chronicle) as soon as I could because there was a story in it about my friend. At this point I asked my father to stop pulling my chain and tell me what had happened. Here is what he told me: the night before my friend, who I knew as Joe Bentley, was coming out of his apartment, which was located near the Sunset District in San Francisco. As Joe was getting into his car a white van pulled up along side him and when the side door was opened one of the people inside the van cut loose at point blank range on Joe with a double-barrel shot gun. Joe was killed instantly. Turns out my friend Joe Bentley's real name was Joe Barboza and he had been the chief enforcer for the Patriarca organized crime family in New England. Joe had turned state's evidence against his don, Raymond Patriarca and had been placed in the witness protection program by the FBI. Joe had also confessed to the FBI that he had personally killed 25 people. (He had actually cut out one victim's stomach with a knife.) There is a lot more that I later learned about my friend that I won't go into right now because it isn't germane. My point, however, is that it is absurd for you or anyone to think that it is that easy to tell or distinguish dangerous people from people who are benign unless the ones who are dangerous are flashing that information to you. Joe Bentley/Barboza was an extremely dangerous person but I didn't know that and there is no way I could have ever known that about him given how he conducted himself with me. I also don't have clue as to why somebody like him befriended a 20 year-old black guy who was not a criminal or a gangster. Maybe he liked the fact that I got along with folks and didn't give people crap and didn't take any crap. Who knows? In any case, you can't tell jack about people in terms of their capacity or intention to commit violence unless they give you a sign. Stop trying to criminalize Muslims because they don't have ESP. They are not responsible for anything except their own behavior. Great story. The difference was, your friend was not obviously a member of a dangerous group. There are two questions at hand after your story: 1. are there dangerous groups? 2. how do you know if a given person is a member of a dangerous group? Let's start by agreeing that not all groups who are believed dangerous are in fact dangerous. There's probably far more cases of false accusation than cases of naive acceptance, but the latter occurs. So the analysis I started with presumes that you KNOW who is a member of the group, and that you know the group is dangerous. The difference was, your friend was not obviously a member of a dangerous group.
Why, in your opinion, are Muslims ipso facto members of a dangerous group? I should have mentioned this fact: While Joe Barboza was in the witness protection program he was suspected of committing several other murders that many people believe the FBI knew about and did nothing. It is hard for me to believe that I should worry about Muslims when my own government gives admitted murderers a bye and looks the other way when they kill more people.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/family_epics/providence_mob/3.html Why, in your opinion, are Muslims ipso facto members of a dangerous group?
Because 99% of terrorism going on today is by Muslims.
shelf, you're saying that the boundary lines laid down by the "victim class" are the only ones that are valid. That doesn't make sense. People are defined by a whole bundle of characteristics, not just the one you consider relevant. So maybe you see the characteristic "Muslim" as a defining characteristic. Why does that mean that a French-speaking, Canadian-born, college-educated, upper-middle class, Republican accountant (who is also Muslim) has to accept your definition of which "class" determines his obligations? In other words, your way of classifying people may not be the same as the way they classify themselves. Folks who paid attention over the last 40 years know this. The research done by Prof. Robert A. Pape, the author of Dying to Win - The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism - shows that the leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu families. BTW, are you caling the armed resistence in Iraq to the U.S. invasion terrorism? If this is true then what do you call the campaign of "Shock and Awe" waged by the American military in Iraq. More than 100,000 Iraqis died in that campaign.
spreading FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY!!! iow - legitimate, moral, civilized, and modernist goddammit!!! {last one's the Cobbian bonus gratuitously thrown into the pot for black conservative flavor} (^; Why does that mean that a French-speaking, Canadian-born, college-educated, upper-middle class, Republican accountant (who is also Muslim) has to accept your definition of which "class" determines his obligations? Because that person describes himself using the same summary description as do the terrorists. Because that person describes himself using the same summary description as do the terrorists.
In print and electronic media interviews about Muslims and/or religious beliefs and faith but I doubt that this person would apply for a job as an acountant and offer his being a Muslim as a qualification for the job. shows that the leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu families. Ok. Perhaps I should have qualified it a bit. Sri Lanka is the hottest of separatist terrorist movements, like the Basques. They don't represent much of a threat to me or you, except as they might export terrorist technology. BTW, are you caling the armed resistence in Iraq to the U.S. invasion terrorism? Mostly, but not all. The execution of journalists, aid workers, and diplomats is terrorism. The bombing of local markets is terrorism. The bombing of local police is terrorism. The execution of lawyers is terrorism. Attacks on the US Military are repugnant, but not terrorism. I doubt that this person would apply for a job as an acountant and offer his being a Muslim as a qualification for the job. In most Islamic countries he could be disqualified for not being a Muslim, and it would certainly make sense to offer reassuring behavior. In the US/Canada, job hunting books make it clear that volunteering religious affiliation is simply a bad idea. It has little chance of making success more likely, but some chance of making success less likely.
My redheaded newspaper carrier threw the morning news on the roof. Therefore, I demand that all redheads do something to get me my morning newspaper.
No, you have decided that person must describe himself with that summary description because he shares one trait with some terrorists. You have decided that one commonality trumps all differences. You have decided that one commonality trumps all differences. The goal in these things is to find the smallest dangerous group. But no smaller. All terrorists are human. Humans are dangerous. Correct, but needs progress. Progress: Most terrorists are Muslim. Muslims are dangerous. Correct, but needs progress. Progress: Western Muslims aren't terrorists. Non western Muslims are dangerous. Whoops: Theo Van Gough is murdered by a western Muslim. Lots of American Muslims willingly financed Al Qaida. Reverse: Muslims are dangerous. Progress: ?? I don't know, but I agree we need to get to a smaller group. That's why it is important for non-violent Muslims to distinguish themselves from the terrorists.
What did Pape show the superset of suicide terrorists groups to be? What characteristic did they nearly all have in common? {the superset from which the largest subset happens to be a group of secular marxists of hindu extraction} In most Islamic countries he could be disqualified for not being a Muslim, and it would certainly make sense to offer reassuring behavior.
The above is a classic example of a non sequitor.
It's not the responsibility of any person to sort himself or herself into categories for the convenience of others.
False premise. Faulty inference. It's not the responsibility of any person to sort himself or herself into categories for the convenience of others. To avoid suspicion, a member of a dangerous group needs to participate in allowing the dangerous group to shrink to a smaller group not including the helper. Now why does a person need to do that? Not to fulfill any moral imperative, but to remove himself from suspicion. Is a person responsible to remove himself from suspicion? Not really. But the consequences are that unless someone else includes him in a separate removal, he'll remain under suspicion.
What did Pape show the superset of suicide terrorists groups to be? What characteristic did they nearly all have in common? If a reasonably small group could be found that included all of these, that would be very valuable for non-violent Muslims.
The execution of journalists, aid workers, and diplomats is terrorism. The bombing of local markets is terrorism. The bombing of local police is terrorism. The execution of lawyers is terrorism. Attacks on the US Military are repugnant, but not terrorism.
I'll keep these definitions in mind if we're ever invaded by aliens who just want to bring the benefits of democracy to our land. What did Pape show the superset of suicide terrorists groups to be? What characteristic did they nearly all have in common? I'm not ignoring your question Nulan but I'm tied up with the troops. I'll get to back to you in the morning. No problem PT..., I knew the answer before I asked, but I didn't want to discourage further instructive and completely unselfconscious sollipsism from certain quarters. I must say that over the past couple days our rear seat passenger has put on quite an amazing show of hysterical vorpal bunnyisms, snicker snack, snicker snack, all mimsy were the borogoves twas brillig and the slithy toves.., ROTFLMBAO!!! The American Conservative did an interview with Pape in which he spelled it out;
The real terrorists have got their sheer moral horror mojo in full muhfuggin effizzi...., In past such cases you've claimed that a good relationship with Saudi Arabia constituted military occupation, such that 911 was a reaction to military occupation. It's a small audience, CN. Roll as you see fit.
That does it, DW. ALL White People Are Suspect. Properly assumed, pre-judged, Suspect Racists. They are all members of a historically and otherwise demonstrably Racist Group. Racists are dangerous. Therefore All White People (Suspect Racists) are dangerous. ALL White People are, in effect, Guilty Until Proven Innocent. So, for distinctions sake, it is high time you Proved Yourself. Dwshelf, Prove Yourself! ----->> Okay, I'm not convinced. Prove Yourself! ----->> Still not convinced. Prove Yourself! ----->> Ummm... (Pssst!!) 'Not convinced.' What have you done lately, personally, towards the Reduction Of Racism/Racists et al?
Note: Things you have posted before this point, I'm sure, have not amounted to an effective defense or anything self-distinguishing. Please report all of your Left-esque, Anti-Racist philosophies, thoughts and activities <<< Here >>>. Thank you, this will help us help you distinguish yourself from those dangerous, racist people.
Don't you just love these little trips through the looking glass? I know I do... There was a time, in America, when the group of all white people represented a somewhat terrorist threat toward black people. An era when white thugs killed black men. During that era, white people were indeed dangerous if you were black, or even if you were white but directly involved in the cause of racial equality. During that era, it was quite correct to say "most lynchings are done by white men". It would have been reasonable for a black man, in certain contexts, to assure himself that the white men he was about to accompany were "safe". It would have been expected from non-violent white men to offer reassurance, if they wanted to remove themselves from suspicion. If they didn't mind being under suspicion, they were free to just stand mute, but surely black people would be legitimately afraid of such a white man. There was a time, in America, when the group of all white people represented a somewhat terrorist threat toward black people. An era when white thugs killed black men. During that era, white people were indeed dangerous if you were black, or even if you were white but directly involved in the cause of racial equality.
Yesterday, I was listening to Bob Edwards interview Stetson Kennedy who, among other things including working closely with Zora Neale Hurston in Florida in the 1930s, actually infiltrated the FBI and collected information that he attempted to turn over to the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, which, of course, refused to accept Kennedy's documents and findings. Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that one of more interesting anecdotes Kennedy recalled for Edwards is that during his undercover work he approached the FBI and reported his activities. Shortly thereafter, he was at a Klan meeting when that klavern's local head announced to the group that they had been infiltrated. Kennedy said that it was clear that the FBI had reported him to the Klan.
The point here has little to do with "legitimate" fears. This whole removing oneself from suspicion thing as you presented here requires more than professions of "I'm not one of them" from Muslims or "Muslims look alikes"... (You do recall the Sikhs White Terrorists assaulted/killed post 9/11 don't you?)
You require ACTION from "suspect" Muslim "terrorists" - i.e. ALL Muslims in your book. Pro-Active and Preventative ACTION. Funny how in your "Once Upon A Time When Whites Were SOMEWHAT Terrorists" sweet little story, the only thing a White man was obliged to do is "offer reassurrance" that he was not one of them. You didn't put the onus on that so-called non-violent and even pro-equality White man to "stop the killing" or White-On-Black Domestic Terrorism. Hell, you're even squeamish about calling it that as you try to WhiteWash. Fluctuating standards with varying degrees of onus, particularly when you grant your own White group much more latitude or don't have them to as strict a standard, shows how fraudulent your position is. You cannot declare when the "Once Upon A Time" was for Black people in America with respect to White Terrorism. Defining what is and what isn't "terroristic" to Black people is not province of White people, for sure. So it matters not whether at some time passed that "most lynchings were perpetrated by Whites against Blacks." That's you inserting your own restrictive determination of what is "terror" to Black people. Terrorism that today, IMO, can even include the mere continuation or the unresolved legacy of past acts of said "terrorism."
With that said, you are still a Suspect Racist. PROVE YOURSELF!!
Neverending ill-logical hilarity from vorpal bunnyland..., I'm quite certain that it was Osama bin Laden who made the above claim. The relationship of the Bush Elites with the House of Saud has little or no bearing on the relationship between American and Arabian peoples.., quite obviously, there are more than a few Arabian nationals/transnationals who hate modernist occupation, cultural contamination, and the dual hypocrisies of freedom and democracy. and now, quite a few Iraqi's who feel exactly the same way and then some!!! As for the once upon a time terrorism in America drivel..., one need look no further than the disproportionate, brutal, and disparate enforcement of drug laws against young black men to clearly identify the thread of continuing terroristic warfare being waged against black folks. No mainstream politician is decrying this obviously racist policy and praxis in order to redeem the interlocking modernist thugocracy that profits very handsomely from its continuing operations. The point here has little to do with "legitimate" fears. It's 1922 NM. You're 17. Young black man. Walking along a road somewhere in Florida. A touring car pulls up, with three white men. One of them gets out. You've never any of them before. "You interested in some paid work?". No threat or hostility in the voice. So you run it through your mind. Most white men are not killers. You haven't done anything offensive, let alone criminal. It's not that uncommon for white men want some cheap labor. Or to want someone willing to do some undesirable job. You'd like the dollar which usually compensates an odd job. And yet, you're afraid. Is your fear legitimate? If so, on what basis?
It's 2005, in Leawood Kansas at 10:30pm and I'm on my way back home from a meeting out in Overland Park. I've been pulled over by the Leawood police for DWB..., episode number 47 in the neverending saga of DWB in the heartland. To date, I've stared down the wrong end of a police shotgun, service revolver, or 9MM semi 6 times, and I've never been arrested for anything, ever. I've had my car(s) searched on at least a dozen of these occasions. Not once in 42 years have I ever had recourse to call the police to serve and protect me or my family in any manner form or fashion. How has it come to pass that I've had this palestinian level of unsolicited contact with white American law enforcement agents in all munipalities, counties, and states in which I've lived, and have never once in all those years had recourse to call upon the protection or service of those same law enforcement officials? So I run it through my mind. Most white cops are not killers. You haven't done anything offensive, let alone criminal. It's not that uncommon for white cops to profile and detain black men. Or to randomly screen someone vaguely fitting the description. I've done this dozens of times before And yet, I'm afraid. Is my fear legitimate? If so, on what basis? "It's 1922 NM. You're 17. Young black man. Walking along a road somewhere in Florida." Florida had the highest per capita rate of lynching in the U.S. from 1900-1930. One of the most brutal public lynchings in American history took place in Marianna, Florida, near my mother's birthplace. Umm... On your oft-topic hysterical (suppose to be hypothetical)... Ummm... "Because he/they are strangers" Ummm... "Because they may all be gay and looking for Black butt." Ummm... "Because, hell, there's three of them and they can do whatever job themselves." Ummm... "Because I actually had somewhere I was going to. Even a job that compensates." The Moral: Find a better tactic to avoid questions and to try to make an off-the-point "point."
That's the question that's before you. Talk about White-On-Black Terrorism then is also beside the point. White-On-Black Terrorism being but one type or manifestation of American [WHITE] Racism which is on-going - past, present and apparently future, considering how you and others don't feel so obliged. Note, again, assurances/reassurances that you are not "one of them" does precious little towards the very thing you charged as necessary. PROVE YOURSELF!!!! Show how you and Whites, generally, are about the process of "stopping the racists/racism." Don't get sidetracked on comparative terrorism with your penchant for the Whitewash... (a la "somewhat"). Detail what Whites are doing to not only distinguish themselves from Racists but what you/they are doing to End Racism and all that flows from it. You can start with... you can start with what Cnulan presented. Start there and tell me (us): What have you (Whites) done lately, personally, towards the Reduction Of Racism/Racists et al?
This is what white terrorists did to Claude Neal. My mother was twelve years old when this happened.
What are you talking about? With DW as the witness (prosecutor and judge), that only "represented a somewhat terrorist threat toward black people." And yet, I'm afraid. Are you afraid of being murdered?
A better question Dwshelf... Is are you afraid of my challenge? Are you afraid of applying the same standard or rather having the same standard of being SUSPECT apply to you? You know, being held to that standard and being Suspect and viewed as Racist Until Proven Anti-Racist? (Notice I didn't say non-racist. Look it up if you can't figure it out.) I take your silence and evasions as a resounding YES!! Yes!! A Thousand Times, YES! You seem rather reluctant to consider, let alone act as if you're motivated. being held to that standard and being Suspect and viewed as Racist Until Proven Anti-Racist? There are a lot of things which might legitimately categorizes white people NM. Given a broad definition, all white people are racists. If you choose such a definition, and end seeing all white people as racists, there's not much I can do to help you reduce the size of your group. On the other hand, if you'll supply some tighter criterion, say "doesn't kill black people for political purposes", I'd be pleased to help you identify a smaller group than "all white people", a smaller group which doesn't include me.
only "represented a somewhat terrorist threat toward black people." The word "somewhat" was to suggest that the analog is imperfect, rather than to minimize the magnitude of the offense. The murder of Martin Luther King was terrorism in precisely the same way the murder of Theo Van Gough was. The Birmingham church bombing was pure terrorism. The lynching of a black man suspected of raping a white woman was plenty offensive, and terrorism like, but not exactly the same. However, in the context of whether white men should be feared, the lynching ends up more broadly frightening than assasination or church bombing of political activists, because it could happen to a random, uninvolved person.
The murder of Martin Luther King was terrorism in precisely the same way the murder of Theo Van Gough was...
No, it wasn't.
What do you see which was different, PT?
What part of this don't you understand? You have no say or sway in what is the criteria or definition. I said RACIST/RACISM. Not killing. Certainly for someone to be "racist" does not require them to kill someone of another race. In Slavery, there was little intent to "kill" Slaves but it was, as an institution, "racist" nonetheless. So too was Jim Crow. Yes there were lynchings, etc. But even when characterizing the racism of those eras, the physical violence present then is not and does not constitute the sum total of the racism then. The Civil Rights Movement was about more than the end of White Racist Violence against Blacks. So please say something that makes sense. To the extent that you refuse to do anything about YOUR GROUP (not mine) and the racism/racists among Whites, you have, in effect, said that you are not willing to be held to the very standard of being SUSPECT that you want to put out there about some other "group" - i.e. a definition, a standard and criteria you created for them and thereby judge them SUSPECT without any such interventions from them for you to modify your "criterion" to something "they can do for you." At no time have you granted Arab/Muslims that privilege of vetting your criterion. So there is no such White Privilege here for you to circumvent or circumscribe what is Racism and the standard to which you are held by others who have reason to view you as SUSPECT. Obviously, you are not motivated. And so here lays your argument. Dead with no revival.
WRONG ANSWER. Again, you don't get to define what is "terror" to someone else especially when you have not delineated what qualifies as "terror" or "terroristic." Massacres, e.g., are massacres. It matters not whether the massacres are analogous or comparative in scope... and you have, again, not provided anything that showed how there is a noteable difference. Also, you are not that damn dumb not to understand the connotation of saying "somewhat" in that context. And... lol... your are all the more SUSPECT because of how long it took you to respond to it and come up with a clarification/justification for your poor choice of words.
Of course..., and for a coherent set of reasons - inclusive of the empirical fact that two of those interdictions reached murderous threat levels because of the attitudes of the officers. The only thing that stopped them was the number of and vociferous objections of witnesses. But to outline briefly; 1. The vast majority of young white cops I've encountered are 2. Much of the curricular material in police academies is shockingly 3. Imbalance of perceived power/status {I'm a default criminal or 4. The socio-economic strata from which most contemporary young law To the extent that you refuse to do anything about YOUR GROUP (not mine) and the racism/racists among Whites, you have, in effect, said that you are not willing to be held to the very standard of being SUSPECT that you want to put out there about some other "group" - i.e. a definition, a standard and criteria you created for them and thereby judge them SUSPECT without any such interventions from them for you to modify your "criterion" to something "they can do for you." As I tried to explain NM, for some definitions of racist, that's me, so I can't do much about it. Your suspicions are dead on. If, however, you define racism in a way which includes a threat or an obstruction or some deliberate creation of pain, I'll be pleased to exclude myself from that group. Note that with Muslims I simply request them to distinguish themselves from Muslims who are terroristic murderers.
If you're afraid of being murdered CN, then you will of course be suspicious. I would note that 3. Imbalance of perceived power/status {I'm a default criminal or Describes nearly everyone's relationship with the police. It's surely how I would describe most of my interactions, although I don't recall looking down any gun barrel. There was a time, during an era when it was perfectly legal, that I was asked by a highway patrolman to hand him a loaded .357 from the glove compartment. I was a little concerned. I was afraid if I pointed the loaded gun toward him that he might shoot me. I was afraid that if I handed him a loaded gun pointed toward me, that I might be shot by accident. So I decided to unload the gun, which was a single action Ruger. One shell at a time could be removed through the loading door. Pickup truck. The patrolman stood slightly behind my driver's window and watched over my shoulder as I unloaded six shells with the barrel pointed straight up, and then spun the cylinder around confirming the empty status. I'm sure he had his gun in his hand quite ready, but he did not display it. I handed him the Ruger, handle first, barrel pointed back toward me. After finding the gun to not be stolen, which could be done even in those long-gone days, he returned it. Now did he have the right to demand to see that gun? Probably not. But nothing was amiss, and it seemed that the easiest way to get on my way was to cooprate.
How would one do that, on a practical level? How could a random Arab American convince Mr. Prager he or she is no threat? What could he say, what could she do? Announce her political affiliation whenever she walks in a room where there's non-Muslims? Wear a badge? What he demands is impossible because of the way a suspicious mind works. How would one do that, on a practical level? It's already being done, but to a limited extent. The most practical action one can take is to call the police when a member of one's group is showing some inclination to murder. If a sub-group leadership strongly encourages such police reports, the expectation become that that subgroup is no more likely than non-Muslims to be a terrorist murderer. This is the general nature of fundamentalist Christian behavior in America with respect to abortion doctor murderers. Fundamentalist Christians in America, for all their nonsense, do not tolerate murderers in their midst. So the first thing we do when we look to make a smaller group is to look at particular Muslim leaders. When we find leaders who, by their words, seem tolerant of murder, we maintain suspicion of their followers. When we find leaders who encourage calling the police, we feel more at ease. == In the extreme, some Muslims might have to disclaim the summary description. They might, for example, insert the word "Reform" into their description, to make it clear that they want no part of terrorism.
The most practical action one can take is to call the police when a member of one's group is showing some inclination to murder.
Murderers or people who are planning to commit a murder or murders don't usually announce their intentions. It's not like they'll leave a note on the counter next to the coffee pot for you to read when you get up the next morning. What you're really suggesting is that Muslims in western nations should spy on each other and report imagined suspicious activity to the police authorities. A sort of Homeguard for the Prophet Brigade.
How many Muslem terrorists have taken any action at all in the USof A? Call that A. How many Muslems are there in the USofA? Call that B. A/B = the odds any one of them knows a terrorist. And it's even better when you consider the worldwide numbers. Mr. Prager has set a standard Muslems will not have the opportunity to meet.
What do you see which was different, PT?
DW, since you are the one making this assertion I believe it is incumbent on you to offer reasons why you believe there is some connection between Dr. King's murder and the murder of Theo Van Gogh. I see a closer connection between Mr. Van Gogh's killing and the murder of that young Brazlian electrician, Charles de Menezes, on the London subway or the murder of that 13 year-old Palestinian schoolgirl who was shot 20 times at a checkpoint by Israeli soldiers because they believed that she was carrying a bomb or, as some other soldiers claimed, they thought that she was signaling a terrorist. The Israeli officer who fired a few more bullets into this child after she had been shot 20 times and was lying prone on the ground was cleared yesterday by a court martial because of alleged discrepancies in the testimony of the soldiers at the checkpoint. The officer didn't deny having shot the girl but there was some confusion as to whether she was still moving or not. If she was still twitching, I guess, then it was okay to pump a few more rounds into her body. Just so you don't get too confused: the murder of Mr. Van Gogh was a horrible and dastardly deed. The person who did it should be locked away for the rest of his life with no chance for parole. But you still need to provide some arguments or persuasive facts to support your claim.
No. This is not about assurances and reassurances. As I've said, you simply declaring you are not "one of them" will not suffice. Besides, Cnulan laid out something you have never bothered to distinguish yourself from. Nor have you provided the means by which we can tell, beyond Lip Service, that you are a "benign" one with respect to things that matter. Again, you don't get to set the criterion by which you are judged. There is no such White Privilege. You have not granted that privilege or license to Arab/Muslims... don't assume it or request it here.
Hmm... Notice you don't want to apply that reasoning to [White] Racism, even the systematic Racism that Cnulan highlighted with respect to the unequal sentencing laws that, arguably, [some/most] Whites clamour for in their overstated, even if implicit, and largely unfounded fear of Black crime -- crimes, generally, being overwhelmingly intra-racial as they are. You want to be able to distinguish yourself from Racists, apparently, by making mere professions instead of the type of actions your required Muslims take in order to avoid SUSPICION. You are henceforth SUSPECT on all counts. You have not done anything in an effort to "stop the racism." You have not even bothered to distinguish yourself and PROVE YOURSELF worthy of not being SUSPECT with respect to the unequal sentencing note here which poses a clear and present threat and is a deliberate "creation of undue pain" and suffering imposed (unequally) upon the Black Community. From your continued silence on the question at hand you prefer to remain SUSPECT than to do what's necessary for you to do to distinguish yourself from the Racists and the Racism that continues:
You have not pointed out the racists and the racisms among you and those in your group. Whatever distinctions you declare then are passive, not active. And, I'd venture to say you rarely do anything to provide any meaningful Means Of Distinction. And you further expose yourself with that SOMEWHAT stuff. White Blindness it seems, as you grant deference and allowance for Whites that you don't grant otherwise. Yes, you were quick to say "somewhat" as a highlight to how the terrorism experienced by Africans/African-Americans is not exactly analogous to so-called Islamic Terrorism. Hmmm... But funny, even with info. that indicated what characterizes "Islamic" extremists/terrorists (reactions to occupation, e.g.), you saw no need to highlight the distinctive character of White Racist Terrorism which is hardly analogous to "Islamic" terrorism. To the extent that the objective of terrorism is to make some type of political statement, we know that White Racist Domestic Terrorism is a very different statement from Islamic Terrorism. And it has nothing to do with whatever difference that can be attributed to domestic vs. international character of the terrorisms. See? You were willing to accept (or rather promote) how "once upon a time" there were (arguably) White Terrorists, you never sought to highlight how different those White Terrorists were/are from Islamic Terrorists. That's a curious and very SUSPECT oversight considering how you were so compelled to say the acts of "terror" against Africans/African-Americans in the U.S. as perpetrated by "White Thugs" weren't/aren't exactly analogous to Islamic Terror in terms of what the victims experienced. Apparently, examining and highlighting the clear differences in that White Terrorism and Islamic Terrorism is too much of a task for you. Which makes you all the more SUSPECT. Your views that is via your difficulty with articulating profound distinctions that focus on the WHITE. So it's no wonder why you can't or won't answer this clear distinction setting question:
Once Upon A Time with respect to this Your Looking Glass here, that was a bold-faced lie. Today, maybe it's just a White Lie. Be that as it may, [WHITE] Fundamentalist Christians and Whites generally, it seems, tolerate the hell out of "RACISTS" and RACISM in their midst. Hell, [WHITE] CONservatives, for one, are prime to say inane things like "You can't legislate morality" and such - especially with respect to "racism"/racial attitudes. I'm pretty sure plenty of them are devout. Now, I can't imagine an "American" like you being satisfied with an "Islamic" nation "harboring" terrorists that has a flippant comeback like, "you can't govern or pass laws to stop terrorists." The Moral again is that you know that we know that you're not willing to be subjected to being seen as SUSPECT in ways that someone else decides that you are SUSPECT. And you, in no wise, would feel obliged to honor their suspicions by doing the necessary things to distinguish yourself on the basis of their (not your) Criteria For Suspicion. And it's proven yours (for Muslims) is the most ridiculous and arbitrary. The very "suspicion" you have of Muslims and your the requirement you place on them is a product of this very thing you don't want to address. Your suspicions of them are a product of and example of one of those definitions you yourself have said, "That's Me." No one has to placate to those ridiculous sensibilities. "Fundamentalist Christians in America, for all their nonsense, do not tolerate murderers in their midst." Rabbit tracks.
Nor have you provided the means by which we can tell, beyond Lip Service, that you are a "benign" one with respect to things that matter. Again, you don't get to set the criterion by which you are judged. NM, I get where you're coming from, and I try to relate. The fact is, I'm no killer, nor would I tolerate supporting killers. That's very much a part of who I am. So I don't buy the analog. You're no killer either. If you and I were together in person, I'd be quite safe. Ask me how I know.
DW, since you are the one making this assertion I believe it is incumbent on you to offer reasons why you believe there is some connection between Dr. King's murder and the murder of Theo Van Gogh. Both were murdered because someone didn't like the effect they were having on the eveolution of broadly shared morality.
How many Muslem terrorists have taken any action at all in the USof A? Call that A. How many Muslems are there in the USofA? Call that B. A/B = the odds any one of them knows a terrorist. And it's even better when you consider the worldwide numbers. I bought this for a while. Right here in California a would-be terrorist cell was broken up. Did we see the proof? No. Does that leave a chance they were simply persecuted? Sure. Do I belive that "uncle Tom" Muslims cooperated with the FBI in creating a bogus terrorist threat? No. Now let's look at the equation again: How many Muslem terrorists have taken any action at all in the USof A? Call that A. How many Muslems are there in the USofA? Call that B. A/B = the odds any one of them knows a terrorist. And it's even better when you consider the worldwide numbers. How many non-Muslims have taken murderous anti-American action lately? 0. How many Americans have died due to Muslim terrorism during the past 5 years? 3000 odd. Do Muslims represent a threat? Yes, but only those who fail to distance themselves from terrorism.
Obviously, you don't. I didn't express anything relating to whether you were a "killer."
Since you claim to "get where I'm coming from" answer that question. After going through all of this, it's damn sure not rhetorical. And, no, you can't merely profess your way to distinction. You are still SUSPECT. You look like one of them. No Lip Service allowed. And please... Compatible analogues are not your cup of tea. So save it. Again, I expressed not one thing relating to whether you were a "killer." That was not what I drew a parallel to. You are and remain SUSPECT. And you have proven that you have no desire to distinguish yourself. You look like one of them. PROVE YOURSELF! ...Well, in actuality, in ways you've already conceded, you have. You have prove the very fraudulent basis of your issue with Muslims. Your perception that anyone ostensibly Muslim is a threat. After all, they all look alike, huh? Why have you failed to distance yourself?
Hey, when all they have to do to qualify is to "Look Like One Of Them", of course they "represent a threat." You are and remain SUSPECT. You not only "Look Like One Of Them" but you haven't even begun to distinguish yourself, let alone distance yourself - "that's me." Nor have you played the "Uncle Tom" with respect to what you are SUSPECT for. See, you just keep weave the web that tangles you. I recalled you saying...
Which you've now made a simple LIE. "Cooperate or Else" is not a simple request for reassurance. It is an active, even a proactive, preventative measure you don't want to be subjected to (or rather won't subject yourself to) even though you too, by virtue of not even providing assurance (to the contrary, you've said "that's me"), have not distinguished yourself. And you still "Look Like One Of Them." YOU ARE SUSPECT. Cooperate.... And, really? What mutual benefit will American Muslims derive from this process? What? Not being subject to your "American"... "You Look Like One Of Them" standards? How many Americans have died due to Muslim terrorism during the past 5 years?
How many Iraqi civilians have died due to American terrorism since the first Gulf War? How many Iraqis were killed in the British aerial bombing campaign of 1933?
With that said... I'm interested in how Dwshelf feels White Racist Terrorists are comparable to Islamic Terrorists. It's historically clear that the impetus and even the objectively observed objective(s) of the two are very different. Yet he has entertained the analogue between the two without one peep about them being incomparable. Must be that Blindness. Part one of two:
Do white people represent a threat? Yes, but "only" those fail to distance themselves from racism. See below.
More to the point, though... A Washington state man who claimed to be a former member of U.S. Special Forces is facing charges stemming from alleged threats he made to blow up a Department of Veterans Affairs office. Oklahoma man held before boarding plane with bomb An Oklahoma man was taken into custody after he tried to carry a bomb on board an airplane on Wednesday in Oklahoma City, an FBI spokesman said. Charles Alfred Dreyling Jr., 24, was detained on Wednesday morning after a security screener using an X-ray machine saw the device in his luggage as he tried to board a flight to Philadelphia at Will Rogers Airport in Oklahoma City. Ohio Gunman Drops Insanity Plea Ex - Klansman Gets 14 Years in Pipe Bomb Sting CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (AP) -- A federal judge sentenced a former Ku Klux Klansman to 14 years in prison Friday for making pipe bombs and selling them to an undercover informant who said they would be used to kill illegal immigrants. Daniel Schertz, 27, apologized to his family before the judge gave him the maximum possible penalty in a plea agreement. ''The court is not going to take into account at all your involvement with the Ku Klux Klan. That is your right,'' federal Judge Curtis L. Collier told him. ''We do punish for behavior.''
Texas Tall Tales, Or Terror Plot? HOUSTON, Texas, May 27, 2005(AP) Authorities say a man accused of trying to sell a bomb to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist group also wanted to help the terrorist group set off explosive devices in Washington, D.C., New York and at a Super Bowl. Ronald Allen Grecula, 68, of Bangor, Pa., was arrested in Houston last week during a meeting with undercover federal agents and local officers. According to authorities, Grecula believed he was meeting with members of the Russian mafia who had al Qaeda ties. At a court hearing in Houston Thursday, FBI agent Shauna Dunlap testified that Grecula said he wanted to build and sell an explosive device with a force similar to a nuclear weapon to al Qaeda for use against Americans. Authorities say Grecula was angry at the government over losing custody of his children, whom he had kidnapped in November 2000. He spent about a year in prison on the kidnapping charge. His wife and children now live in a Houston suburb. According to Dunlap, he also told an undercover FBI agent the device should be used in Washington because it could "take out whole city blocks." The US Terrorism Plot That the Media Ignores In May 2003, white supremacists in Texas were caught with a sodium cyanide bomb, other bombs, illegal weapons, hate literature, fake I.D., and chemicals, including hydrochloric acid and nitric acid. In mid-November, three people pleaded guilty to related charges, while seized documents indicate that there are other co-conspirators at large. The feds have served "hundreds of subpoenas across the country," and the plot has been included in the President's daily intelligence briefings. But most of us have never heard about it. The only media that saw fit to report about this terrorist plot within the US were a few newspapers and TV stations in Texas. The Web-based news outlet WorldNetDaily ran a story about it, but Google News shows that there hasn't been a word in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, or any other big media outlet. Why have the media decided that this is a non-story? It's hard to say, but we can say with certainty that if Muslims had been caught with these weapons of mass destruction, fake I.D., gas masks, and books on making explosives, it would've been front-page news for days.
New Arrest in Washington White Supremacist Weapons Case A man accused of manufacturing and supplying weapons to a Seattle neo-Nazi was arrested in southern California on October 18, 2005. Ghassan Haddad, a gunsmith, allegedly manufactured illegal machine guns and helped supply automatic weapons to former Aryan Nations member Keith Gilbert, according to federal agents. Haddad has been charged in U.S. District Court in Seattle with dealing in firearms without a license, manufacture of an unregistered firearm and possession of an unregistered firearm. Need more? I got more...
Sadly for you, I didn't buy your line for a second. Now, let's look at YOUR equations again. How many Muslem terrorists have taken any action at all in the USof A? Call that A. Your "equation" describes how your personal fear developed. Mine describes why Muslims cannot address it. Two wholly different issues being addressed...so even if your point was valid...which it is not...mine would still stand.
mmm..., sniff, sniff..., P6, is that what I think it is? better turn down the fire, smells like it's done.., "better turn down the fire, smells like it's done..." ROTFLMBAO Too bad I'm a vegetarian. Need more? I got more... All but one of those cases were plots, not murders. Even if carried out, none were terroristic. Freeway shooters and DC snipers are an occasional threat alright, but they're not terrorists. The use of the word "terrorist" by a publication with "Socialist" in its name notwithstanding. Mine describes why Muslims cannot address it. Did you consider my suggestions?
Kaczynsky. Overlooked him. We have had non-Muslim terrorists of course. The last one was Mc Veigh. A bit of reflection shows Kaczynsky to have been a terrorist too. He did have a political adenda, it was just so weird no one took it seriously. I'm interested in how Dwshelf feels White Racist Terrorists are comparable to Islamic Terrorists. It's historically clear that the impetus and even the objectively observed objective(s) of the two are very different. Sure. The technique is the same. Kill random people, and assasinate people involved in the political process, so that those alive will be scared into doing what you want.
All but one of those cases were plots, not murders. So are all the "Muslim plots" of your imagination.
They are if you're Black.
Yes. Did you read my response?
Yes. Did you read my response? Here it is: A/B = the odds any one of them knows a terrorist. (where A is American Muslim terrorists and B is all American Muslims) So why would we believe that a terrorist only knows one person? Am I misunderstanding here? If you look at how fundamentalist Christians handle abortion doctor murderers, you find a model which works. A lot of members of that group have the thought to kill an abortion doctor. The group makes it very clear that the group does not want that and does not want anyone who did such a thing in their midst. Just curious here, DW. Does your premise--the one about Muslims needing to distance themselves from terrorism--apply to all Muslims? Or just Arabic Muslims? Does it apply to Arabic non-Muslims? I'm trying to get a handle on where you--and by extension, Mr. Praeger--establish the categories of people who constitute a threat.
I don't remember that statement being made in response to a suggestion of yours. The suggestion I remember was "How many non-Muslims have taken murderous anti-American action lately?" And all those plots were murderous anti-American activities. What was the suggestion you made that you feel I was responding to with my little equation?
I'm trying to get a handle on why others must respond to his assumed threats but neither he nor Mr. Prager have to respond to the threat they represent to others. NM, here's how I get your point: you imply that my fear of Muslims is the equivalent of your arbitrarily stated fear of me. You're implying that my stated fear is as arbitrary, and as ungrounded as yours. My response had, and has, to do with murder. We can all relate to a fear of being murdered. The basic defense which most of us erect is to avoid situations which involve someone with the means wanting to murder you. We avoid the drug trade, for example. And while domestic disputes represent the majority threat beyond that, we believe we have that under control. What's left is a class of murders for which one really has no defense. If some random guy really wanted to murder me, he could. If someone who doesn't like my opinions wanted to murder me, he could. This is the realm of terror. Since we don't have any immediate defense, we seek to manage the threat. We manage it in terms of groups who utilize terror as a technique, by isolating ourselves from such groups. At first glance, that's often impractical, because we lack enough information to identify a small enough group. I fully agree, the group of all Muslims is too large to be useful. But if that's where we are, and we need more information, it is perfectly fair to ask Muslims to help us to identify some smaller group. Help us understand which Muslims are a threat and which are not. DW, when are you going to take a breath and provide us with your reasoning regarding the alleged connections between the murder of Dr. King and Mr. van Gogh? Help us understand which Muslims are a threat and which are not.
In other words, spy on their mosque members and report anyone who expresses anger at the United States.
My understanding is, those Muslims that were not fucked over by US foreign policy are no threat. How do we determine which white people aren't a threat, when we KNOW how y'all talk when you don't know we hear you? That has a lot more to do with the national interest than an irrational fear of something less common than being struck by lightning. DW, I have not stated anything relative to fear. That's you angle. I've talked about how you're SUSPECT in the same arbitrary manner you make Muslims suspect because, for one, "They All Look Alike." So, I have not suggested what fear is or isn't grounded. Again, I have talked about the basis you laid out that, more or less, said why a person, Muslims in your case, are held as SUSPECT. In your case, Muslim are suspect ostensibly on the basis that they, "Look Like Them [Terrorists]." You, likewise, "Look Like Them Racists" and you have not distinguished yourself from them and actually refuse to do so along the terms that I judge Racists. Racism is not benign. You not distinguishing yourself from Racists shows you are not benign. Whether I'm "safe" around you is not even in the question. The question is whether you are Racists and what you are doing to "stop Racism." You know, whether you will COOPERATE OR ELSE... Here's an idea. Maybe we could have the "good" Muslims wear a symbol on their clothes. Y'know, maybe a star-and-crescent patch so all the citizens of the homeland would feel, you know, safe. Voluntarily, of course.
Your expressed fear of Muslims has been shown to be groundless. Though as Pape has demonstrated, you may in fact have a conceptually plausible though statistically miniscule basis for fearing folks whose homeland is presently occupied by U.S. military forces, the Muslim inquisition is not simply arbitrary, it's demonstrably specious. For all the world, this Praegerism looks like nothing so much as just another instance of neocon rabble rousers attempting to demonize a large group of people in order to justify escalating violations of that peoples' human and civil rights. OTOH, my fear of lethal threat from white law enforcement officers embodying a mandate from the electorate to wage a disparate war on black men can be shown to be anecdotally, statistically, and pervasively valid. In comparative terms, my fear of a clear and present danger from authorized terroristic elements of the white American governance establishment seems entirely reasonable. What deeply puzzles me is why the methamphetamine epidemic has not spawned a comparable war on the predominantly white producers and users of the drug that crack cocaine spawned...., we know beyond any doubt that violent crime and property crime has gone buckwild in the wake of meth abuse, yet no corresponding legislative policy has been implemented to ensure that a right proper war is waged against the purveyors of this scourge. The question is whether you are Racists and what you are doing to "stop Racism." You know, whether you will COOPERATE OR ELSE... OR ELSE what? If you're not afraid of me (even in an abstract space for arguments sake), why, even as empathetic (in an abstract space for argument's sake) to your feelings, should I feel compelled to action? For your analog to actually work, you have to be fearful of me. The "or else what" as applied to Muslims is answered "or else non-Muslims will remain fearful of you".
"...and anyone who we decide looks like you. Or thinks like you. Or has a name that sounds to our ear like yours. Or that expresses too much sympathy for your complaints about what we do to you. Or votes in some way we disagree with..." "...and anyone who we decide looks like you. Most valid concerns have invalid lookalikes.
So DW, why do Muslims have to respond to your concerns while you don't have to respond to Black people's concerns? You can switch every occurance of "Muslims" for "Black people" if you like.
Buh...buh...but don't those "invalid" lookalikes have the same obligation to separate themselves from the threat you have so inconveniently allied them with? If not, how are we supposed to tell the difference? I mean, they all look alike...oops! Cat's outta the bag now. OK, minus the snark:
No, the "invalid lookalikes" are errors in your scheme. These false positives mean your way of judging threats is invalid. So DW, why do Muslims have to respond to your concerns while you don't have to respond to Black people's concerns? They don't have to, unless they don't want me to be afraid of them. Since black people aren't afraid of me, I have nothing to respond to.
All sensible people are terrified of the irrational perpetration that your alleged fear motivates you to endorse and to vote for. Returning to your original post:
You have proven this remarkably well.
No, the "invalid lookalikes" are errors in your scheme. These false positives mean your way of judging threats is invalid. Simply nonsense, QB. If I need calibration, then critique of me is appropriate. If other people need calibration, that doesn't mean my technique is invalid.
Hunh? We were talking about how Muslims and "anyone who looks like [Muslims]" will be feared by non-Muslims. So now people who are "invalid lookalikes" also need, um, "calibration" whatever that is? You expect the rest of the world to do quite a lot for your convenience. If your method of "calibrating" gives inaccurate results, the fault doesn't lie with the people you've wrongly judged.
DW, you are exactly the kind of white person that scares the hell out of me, and that's no joke. Klansmen, I just kick they ass. DW, you are exactly the kind of white person that scares the hell out of me, and that's no joke. So I thought of a clever, vaguely humorous response. I thought to repeat something I said before. But I decided to take it as what you really intended to say. You've said it before. Once taken seriously, I have a serious question. I don't understand what you fear, or why you fear it. I think of myself as being a friend of black people in general, and in a somewhat impersonal sense, a friend of yours. Consistent with plenty of prior times, you react by expressing fear. Could you explain? I don't fear you as a direct physical threat. But you are a typical unconscious white person. I even believe you mean well, but... When I demonstrate that the actions needed to assuage your fear of Muslims are impossible, your response is, in so many words, "So what? They still have to make us white folks feel better." We demonstrated...you agreed...Filipe Alou was blameless in that San Francisco fiasco earlier this year and to this day you have not said the white folks that flipped on him and blamed him for the white DJ and station manager getting fired were wrong. You defend white privilege reflexively, and when proved wrong you say "Oh well," and move on to the next defense as though you've heard nothing. And if I say what Black folks need to hear...that hey, there's racism but you're too strong to be stopped, if I really turned my attention to making Black folks believe they are so much greater than you that the racism of the majority is powerless, I'd be a Black Supremacist. You and people who think like you, liberal and conservative, are THE obstacle to Black people being accepted as human. And you're the goddamn majority. And that's why I fear you and your reactions.
Thank you for the explanation. I see three types of reaction. 1. Defensive: I can explain why what I did looked different to me than it did to you. 2. It's about me learning and not about communication: I can ignore our disagreements and just try to understand your perspective. 3. I can try some entirely new tack at communication. Not all that long ago someone here linked to an activity going on at some university in Pennsylvania. I can't find the link, but the gist of it was that a bunch of white and black college students were going to try to listen to one another in some friendly context. I liked that. But I know a bit about what might happen. One might ask, "why should white people and black people listen to one another"? Do real solutions to racial issues appear? Do blacks leave having shed the burden of racism? Do whites leave having shed racist attitudes? Not often, and not easily. Do they even make progress? This is the crucial question. Beyond some initial familiarity, there's some really tough going. Both sides will come to believe that the other side isn't being entirely sincere, because what they're hearing doesn't seem sincere. Or even possible. I've come to believe this state of affairs would plague almost any assemblage of whites and blacks seeking progress through discussion. So while I'm not going to claim to have any magic, I'll offer this. If listening is to achieve any important progress, it will pass through a point where both sides are able to experience life as the other side experiences it. That should be the goal of listening. It requires development of trust. === P6 is in many ways an unlikely forum for this discussion. But the discussion does not occur between black liberals and white liberals. It similarly does not occur between black conservatives and white conservatives. It occurs in the storm where "convert to my political philosophy" always seems the answer, but never is. It's not political. It's not about affirmative action at all.
The word is REPROBATE. As for his professions of "friendliness" or "friendship":
Hmmm... What type of warped sense of friendship, hell what type of sense of human-ness, has a man predicating his professed "empathetic" feelings for his "friend(s)" on the basis of his "friend(s)" being in *fear* of him or having to express *fears* (and fears connected to physical violence) in order for him to feel "compelled" or obligated to act? DW, a "friend" of Black people would be able to address this question that you purposely avoided:
A "friend" when faced with a question about the difference in IMPETUS (origin-root) and OBJECTIVE (end-goal) between White Racist [Terrorists] and so-called Islamic Terrorists would not register a diversionary non-answer talking about the irrelevant - i.e. "same techniques"... (E.G. a vigilante, renegade cop may employ the "same" intimidation techniques as a mobster but their techniques don't describe much about them and hardly make them [any more] comparable...) A "friend" doesn't register comments like:
A White "friend" of Black people understands the difference between being non-racist and being an Anti-Racist which, at a minimum, obliges that White "friend" to examine White Privilege. FYI, "that's me" is an assertion of White Privilege or, more precisely, the assertion of White Supremacy (which is not to be confused with some David Duke stuff).
??? HUH ??? ... Anyway... As much as you would like for it to be, there is no Moral Equivalence.
That is not Empathetically Correct. Nor is it a show of trust. BTW, someone who has to "experience things for themselves" is someone who has to learn "the hard way." They make a process more difficult than it has to be. Now, exactly what experience of Whites do Black people need to understand in order for "progress" to be made? ... and "progress" towards what? The acquistion of the goal, properly understood and conceptualized in meaningful terms, dictates the means, the roles, responsibilities and obligations. There is no Moral Equivalence. There is no "both sides"... But, since you think there is, answer the question with no evasions, no diversions. Give me a straightforward response. And, so there is no confusion and to keep you focused:
You're still on the personal, can't we all get along tip. I'm not. You're still on the personal, can't we all get along tip. I'm not. Cool. More deeply than you might at first think. From your perspective, and yours alone, you think I'm a positive force in advancing what you'd really like to see change?
lotta yellin' this week:) i'm gellin' LOL.
[initial remarks scratched...] DW, can you explain that? Explain why Whites (you) prefer to frame things on an interpersonal level when it's clear in discussions like these "Blacks ain't lookin for friendships." Black/White "friendships" (more likely than not in this society, comfortable acquaintances), increasing them, are no measure of "progress" towards any goal expressed here. Dialogue, first and foremost, is about a person explaining their own thoughts and why they think the way they do. What informs and makes them form the ideas they have. That is a process in which a person explores/discovers/uncovers the underlying assumptions and beliefs they have. "Experiencing what others have gone through" is not the means. A Dialogue is different from a discussion. But, just so there's no confusion and to keep you focused:
That is a decidedly group or socially or societal oriented statement. Your requirements from distinction that you placed on Muslims, too, was socially/group oriented. Explain why Whites (you) prefer to frame things on an interpersonal level when it's clear in discussions like these "Blacks ain't lookin for friendships." Black/White "friendships" (more likely than not in this society, comfortable acquaintances), increasing them, are no measure of "progress" towards any goal expressed here. If there's one thing I'm not confused about NM, this is it. Personal relationships between whites and blacks, of which I'm a member of several, eliminate the potential for serious discussion. We value each other too much to take the risk. P6 and I go back a year. It's not all or even mostly been unpleasant.
DW, you didn't even come close to answering the question. You definitely don't take risks. Unfit for Dialogue. The question: Why [do] Whites (you) prefer to frame [social issues] on an interpersonal level... And I could give a damn whether you've had "pleasant" debate, discussion, etc. with P6. What do you think that is suppose to mean to me? You've outlined how those "pleasant" relations are counterproductive. Full with misplaced "values." Scroll up... FOCUS:
What do you think that is suppose to mean to me? You know that I know that most successful black-white interpersonal relationships do not include a serious discussion of racial issues. Too much chance it will break. And still blatantly evasive. Afraid of a little risk? You're already broke. Bankrupt, that is. One more chance at redemption:
I hesistate to interrupt...Nmaginate's question is on point, and I wouldn't mind seeing the answer myself. DW, the answer to your actual question (are you aid or obstacle to my specific plans, in my sole opinion) is long and impersonal. In general, you should be a problem.
Because you (singularly AND collectively) DON'T listen. White folks in general think they're having a conversation when all they're doing is talking to you. Any specific person though, is just one thing to take into account. Your presence doesn't influence my general trajectory much...sometimes you say something I need to address as I pass by. You make a marvelous foil, but you do that yourself, I got nothing to do with it. You've made yourself the other that people react. That's actually something of a distraction because I'm working against the American tradition of identity via exclusion.
Because you (singularly AND collectively) DON'T listen.
No one does, P6, unless you're telling them what they want to hear.
One more chance at redemption:
It's a two way street NM. There's a lot of detail still missing in my understanding. Can we look at the other side first? What experience of blacks do white people need in order for progress to be made? I think we agree that the goal is beyond getting individual white people and individual black people to treat each other nicely. The goal is reducing the background bias which makes life tougher for black people. Now you can see if I've listened AT ALL. 1. I think white people need to experience life as a minority. A minority with some cohesiveness. A world where people think of themselves as a bit of a brother to one another. 2. I think white people need to experience a tougher life, and understand privileged positions. but maybe most importantly 3. I think white people should experience white people as black people experience white people. Now back to the other side. We observe it's not quite symmetrical. 1. I think black people should experience life as a majority. An incoherent majority. 2. I think black people should experience life not so tough, but still very tough. And the one which is symmetric: 3. I think black people should experience black people as white people experience black people. There's more I don't know. Some of these might be less important than ones not here.
No. No. Feel free to read it out of order. I thought maybe it would be more communicative if I used the white example first, but that was certainly not central to the idea.
..not reading a damn thing until you answer Nmaginate's question. And mine.
And that's the street you avoid.
A not-so-clever avoidance. You have not concept or, rather, no Two-Way Street intent. Set A & B 1, 2 and 3 do not represent a Dialogue or any such Two-Way Street exchange. And the very fact that you felt compelled to lay out both sides as you see it (as if your very own idea of "both sides experiencing the others" warrants it) shows that you're trying to drive on both sides of the street instead of mapping directions and navigating on the one you're suppose to be on. And this is exactly the problem. White people, generally, have nothing to say about White Privilege. Instead they(you) feel that you are justified in speaking Out-Of-Order, Out-Of-Turn and Out-Of-Ignorance. Your little cliches and unthinking reflect the contradictions between your rhetoric and practice. You say it's a Two-Street, then stay on your side. The simple point is, when it comes to a Dialogue, a Two Way Street Dialogue on "race", you have no other mission or goal but to listen and only talk about your White Experience. Which leads to this:
Yet, you've tried to perpetrate the idea that there is some equivalence and symmetry (see my last point).
Black people already do. See the assorted Cosby and Cobb-isms.
MY LAST POINT -----> Without touching your declaration of the "goal", with that said (what you said the goal is): Exactly what experience of Whites do Black people need to understand in order for "progress" to be made? <-------- MY LAST POINT What was the suggestion you made that you feel I was responding to with my little equation? I took it you were replying to my claim that it was possible for Muslims to rid themselves of terrorist murderers.
Since NM and P6 both seem to have taken my misordered response as troublesome, I offer the simple answer: Exactly what experience of Whites do Black people need to understand in order for "progress" to be made? 1. I think black people should experience life as a majority. An incoherent majority. 2. I think black people should experience life not so tough, but still very tough. 3. I think black people should experience black people as white people experience black people. No equivalence. No symmetry. That's a list as I see it right now of what experiences of whites that black people would benefit from in the effort to reduce racism. I've tried my best. I don't doubt that if I have the occasion to write this list a year from now it will be different. It sure would have been different a year ago.
Why do you feel White people are so hard-headed that it will take them to experiencing life as a minority in order for them to understand White Privilege? Because life for white people is hard. If there was a thing or two or three about black experience you would pick for me (and white people in general) to experience for themselves, what would they be?
That's not possible.
That's not something in our control.
Switch out "experience" for "understand" and I'll give you that one. You can't have your white next door neighbor's experience, by the way, so the whole "experience" thing is kinda hollow. I don't have an experience to key your epiphany. I can only suggest you live by the rules you'd impose on others...consider it an alchemical Golden Rule.
That's not possible. Can one traverse another's experience? I agree that the vicarious experience will end up imperfect, and by some definitions won't qualify as a "real" experience. However, I suggest that it can be real enough to gain insight. If fact, I'll go so far as to claim that Langston Hughes to drop a name had just that goal in mind while creating some of his stories. So back to the question of whether a black person could experience majority life (a small subset of "white experience", this is purely "majority experience"). The feeling that America is made up of people like you. What you notice when looking around is that you're not special. You're not specially negative, nor are you specially positive. In fact, no one gives a good goddamn about you at all. You're invisible.
You done lost your mind. But please, continue.
And you, you're a fraud. And worst, a COWARD. Why for some reason you sure have made both Black people and Muslim, for one, pretty special. Muslims are special because you fear them, delusionally. We can tell that Black people are special because you want to befriend or, truth be told, And getting back to some really silly stuff you said (besides that "you have to fear me" stuff - LOL)... I have and will never be "troubled" by the type of stuff you say. For one, it is too well documented. Also, it is too damn funny, what you say, for me to find it "troublesome." You got the wrong guy. Maybe P6 gave voice to that idea but not I. I got you in check. You see, in this exercise, I haven't even broken a sweat... But you, you're still running around, frantically. But, COWARDICE will make you do that. And fear is closely correlated with cowardice, under whatever guise. That fear and cowardice has you Hoppin' Down The Bunny Trail... Jumpin' all over the place.
Why are you so scared? What are you so afraid of? You claimed you feel "safe"?? Me, I am not your friend. Neither are you my friend. I don't value you. Take the risk. Or do you prefer to be A Coward In Drag? Me, I am not your friend. Neither are you my friend. I don't value you. I'm more like you than you think, but I'm older. Look NM, no one who takes as much time as you do to express your ideas, and to interact with my ideas, will ever convince me to not like them. This is what life is all about. We're players, you and I.
That's not something in our control. The intent here is not to gain control, not imediately anyway. It's purely to experience. Now we'll start off by agreeing that there exist white people for which life is not tough. Nowadays, I do know a few. During the time I grew up, I knew none. 95% of white kids are on the tough track. Life as a young white man is not a life of privilege. It's a life of getting kicked of the house for not having a job so you can pay some rent. It's a life where the best job you can find is working at Toys-R-Us for the Christmas season, working part time at $8/hr. It's a life where old people seem to have money, but you sure don't. It's a life where if you do have a full time job and an apartment, you have a constant stream of people wanting to move in, because they got kicked out of their house and they don't have a job. At first you enjoy the company. That phase doesn't last very long. It's a life where the Army looks not-so-bad. The Coast Guard looks out of reach. But somehow you survive until 25. You learn to drive a truck, you learn to show up for work on time every day, and you find that steady work is available so that you can actually start to see how those old people got there. You get married and have a kid. Somewhere in your thirties you begin to take it seriously. You sure would like to own a house, but they're totally out of reach. You pursue warehouse management for the company you drive truck for ... Life as a white guy. Tough. (My own story went a bit better after my late twenties. I focused, and got on a track which led to a professional career. But I know a lot of family members whose lives look like that typical story.) Look, DW, none of what you said is relevant. Whether you like or dislike me, whether you are alike or not like me is totally IRRELEVANT. I don't care whether you do or don't. That stuff is IMMATERIAL. IRRELEVANT. Again, this is an exercise and I'm not even breakin' a sweat. It is your very own fear and cowardice that makes you think your "liking" me (or whomever) is even relevant, much less of any import. Oh, it's important to you. So it seems you want it to be important to me. But that has everything to do with your fear and cowardice. It's some type of pathological urge. A projecting, pathological urge. In your fear, it is you who wants to be "liked." Being "liked" will make you feel "distinguished." Being "liked" will make you feel "valued." Valued enough that you won't have to take or confront RISK. So, wanting to be "liked"... wanting to be [perceived as] a "friend," you try to show yourself "friendly," hoping that saying "I like you" will aid in you being "liked" and ultimately aid in your RISK REDUCTION. NOTE: You're not playing. You're being played, Beyonce'. I Got You Lookin' So Crazy right now... And all you can do is try to profess some curious (self)reassurance?
Talking to me while trying to convince yourself... And this, too, is of that self-delusional, self-assuring, self-contradicting order:
Your own Background Bias (BgB) principle complicates that idea. You can't BS your way through this. And, no. You haven't tried your best... To be earnest. If you did, if you were, you would have addressed the HOW? How is/can the minority-majority/majority-minority experience "Trading Places" going to occur? And, more importantly, what does that "Trading Places" entail? What does it involve? The BgB resides with and within the White Majority. Any BgB that's relevant. And, notice I did not inquire about or ask what experience Black folks need to have... The Two-Street context that you yourself inserted was about Talking & Listening. Not experiencing in the literal sense. You are a COWARD because you abandoned your own pretense and context.
And so, my question remains, in that context... you own forsaken context: * Exactly what experience of Whites do Black people need to understand [via LISTENING; via a Dialogue with Whites] in order for "progress" to be made? Note the contextual relationship you attached to LISTENING and progress. The only "experiencing" in that context, your context was a figurative one through, by and solely via LISTENING. So what do Black people need to listen to White people for in order for there to be progress? Progress that, as you have articulated it, is based on eradicating Background Bias? What can White people tell Black people about BgB? What BgB's are Black folks ignorant of or oblivious to (that White People are aware or even care to be cognizant of)? BgB that's relevant. Why is there even a need for Black people to hear or listen to anything White folks have to say in order for BgB to be effectively eliminated? In order for there to be progress... Why is there even a need for Black people to hear or listen to anything White folks have to say in order for BgB to be effectively eliminated? In order for there to be progress... Because black people make requests for white people to change. Requests which every single ordinary white person in America can honestly say that they're not who's being talked to. If you experienced the white experience, you'd gain the ability to communicate to whites about racial issues. Not all whites. But some of them, a lot more than the none of them going on at the moment. Maybe that's not important to you. It's important to me. I actually want to be communicated to. Too convoluted... What part of what P6 clearly communicated did you not understand?
Evidence of that: This whole "I like you" stuff. Confront your pathology. And here we go again: What changes have Black people requested White people make that White people can honestly say those aren't changes they hold within their COLLECTIVE, MAJORITY socio-political power to effect? (I believe my words quoting P6 were: "...and you're the goddamn majority.") What does "every single White person" and their perceptions that "they are not the one's being talked to" have to do with very clear social and societal concerns/requests Black people make? Now, go ahead and list the Black requests (since you list pontificating with lists) made that are somehow inappropriate? What does any of that have to do with the BACKGROUND BIAS, removing it, that you said was the goal of Black/White communication/Dialogue? Don't vacillate. Stand by the stuff that comes out of your mouth. You talked about BgB. You said it was the goal. What does fulfilling that goal have to do with Black folk listening to White people? FOR WHAT?? There's that word again. LISTENING. What's there to communicate? I mean, listening and communicating, however related, are two different concepts. I asked you Why Do Black People Need To Listen To White Folks In Order For There To Be Progress In Eradicating BgB? You are confused by your fear. Your fear has you speaking incoherently. You're looking real crazy right now. You're trying to say Black folk need to LISTEN to White folk in order to know how to communicate with White people. You're trying to say that's needed (Black folks listening) because Black folks are, essentially, falsely accusing most of the "ordinary" White people - of what I don't know. But, DW, what is the purpose of the communication? Why do Blacks even need to communicate to Whites about "Racial Issues" if Whites have something to offer with respect to WHO should (somebody other than them) and WHO should not (certainly not them) be talked to? DW? If White people can conceive of that? Why do they need anything else communicated to them? What? They know it's not them but they don't know and can't comprehend anything else? Please... Produce the LIST of Black Requests that fall on Deaf White Ears because the changes Black people requests/require White people make don't apply to the "every single white person" as if... What are those changes that Black people requested White INDIVIDUALS (your poor, Straw decoding error) make towards the goal, even your own stated goal? You've been here at P6 for a while... List the requests he's either made or those that have been listed here, in their original, unadulterated form, paraphrased or verbatim.
No you do not. You just want to run your mouth. You haven't listened to one damn thing. You're not trying to hear... one damn thing. You're too busy trying to drive two different cars on both sides of the Two-Way Street - which by definition means that you, too, have to communicate and, with that, there is no hierachy. You won't be inserting/asserting White Supremacy here. If you are sincere in wanting a Two-Way Street Dialogue or communication, that means you are equally obligated, reciprocally, to "Communicate To Black About Racial Issues..." Playing Dumb... on the behalf of White Folk, won't save you. White folk ain't dumb. If they know "it ain't them" then they know what "it is." What's there to communicate about then? That's an indication that all the talkin' necessary has been done. What else is there to talk about? Don't prove me right this quick...
What are you trying to say? White people don't know, can't comprehend, can't figure out (on their own) what the BACKGROUND BAISES are?
Note: You just laid asphalt, paid for new signage to convert your pretense of a Two-Way Street into and always intended One-Way Street. Why have you done all this Hip-Hopping around? Why is your mouth still opening? If you want to be communicated to? (Please refer to your list depicting "both sides" - i.e. when you were running your mouth instead of listening or responding to the outline of how to effectively communicate. You will note that you skipped right over communicating about the White Experience. You had other ideas.) 2. I think black people should experience life not so tough, but still very tough. When you start talking about things that are possible, I'll take you seriously. What does "every single White person" and their perceptions that "they are not the one's being talked to" have to do with very clear social and societal concerns/requests Black people make? Understand that my description of white people excludes a few nut cases who are actively your enemy. Keep an eye on them for sure, but there's not enough of them to matter here in 2005. If you asked white people, "do blacks have it tougher than whites in America?", most would say "yes". If you then asked "would you quit doing that", they all would answer, honestly, sincerely, "I'm not the one doing that". NM, here I am. I'm listening. Tell me anything you choose to tell me. DW, I have not sought your audience. You proposed that "both sides need to listen to each other." I have not. LISTENING and communicating... Those are your CONSTRUCTS. Like I told you, you got the wrong guy. I do not presume that you are ignorant or incapable. Hence:
You will note that at no point have I said "White people need to listen to Black people." Again, that transracial listening/communicating is your CONSTRUCT. Not mine. I only told you what that entails. Also, you are not that dumb. You can read. Maybe if you learned how to effectively communicate without all the games and evasions you could actually make an intelligently relevant statement. Obviously, you haven't been listening. And nothing needs to be restated for you now that you want to feign that you're ready to listen. YOU CAN READ. You will note that at no point have I said "White people need to listen to Black people." No, but you seem to be trying hard to get me to understand something. As you correctly observed, I wasn't quite grasping what that was. So I thought if we could isolate it rather than camoflauge it, it would be easier to understand. I'm willing, NM. What are you trying to say? White people [you] don't know, can't comprehend, can't figure out (on their/your own) what the BACKGROUND BAISES are? No white people feel they're personally involved in that background bias. Maybe other white people are, but it's no one they know either. There's nothing to figure out.
YOU CAN READ. Cut with the evasions and IRRELEVANT bull... "Please... Produce the LIST of Black Requests that fall on Deaf White Ears because the changes Black people requests/require White people make don't apply to [them]..." Make that list, hell, make it twice. Just be sure to make it right on the point. What have Black people told, requested or asked Whites as individuals to do that Whites were not doing? For example: Black people have said, "White people stop doing X." What is that X that Black people have falsely accused "every single White person" of doing? Again, you've been here on P6 awhile. I'm sure you have a number of things you can point to that has been said here on P6, if you're not fabricating and imagining things, distorting things. WHAT ARE THEY? I contend that your assertion is false, though it is fitting with all of your assorted cowardice.
Call me a nympho. Everytime you give it up it's good for me. I thought you knew. I thought you knew you had that good stuff. And I like them easy. This apparently got placed out of order:
Cut with the evasions and IRRELEVANT bull... "Please... Produce the LIST of Black Requests that fall on Deaf White Ears because the changes Black people requests/require White people make don't apply to [them]..." Make that list, hell, make it twice. Just be sure to make it right on the point. What have Black people told, requested or asked Whites as individuals to do that Whites were not doing? For example: Black people have said, "White people stop doing X." What is that X that Black people have falsely accused "every single White person" of doing? Again, you've been here on P6 awhile. I'm sure you have a number of things you can point to that has been said here on P6, if you're not fabricating and imagining things, distorting things. WHAT ARE THEY? I contend that your assertion is false, though it is fitting with all of your assorted cowardice.
And that has what to do with anything: That they don't personally feel as if they are "involved"?? Getting rid of the BACKGROUND BIAS involves doing what? Done by whom? Where does the BgB reside? Nut cases?? So it's the Nut Cases running the things in this country that make life hard(er) on Black Folks? The Ruling Class(es) in America = Nut Cases? Please explain if that's what you mean when you try to say most White people aren't "involved" or don't feel they're "involved". P6 was clear in saying the way ya'll vote, etc. Sounds like direct involvement to me. But please... Please reflect on your DISTINGUISHING Requirements. Hmmm... It sure didn't sound like "It's not me. I'm not one of them" and "I don't know any of them" were acceptable to you when it came to your idea about Muslims & Muslim Terrorists. Why in the world do you think you can accord yourself and White people that privilege here? That privilege you don't grant to anyone else... Besides, you haven't listed on single thing that Black people have accused White people as individuals of. Anything that is a false attribution or allegation. You continue to speak in vague, disconnected and clearly disingenuous terms. MAKE THE LIST. I contend that you are perpetrating a fraud. You are lying. You are confusing. You are purposely conflating the social/societal into the personal in order to give your collective White COWARDICE an out.
My point exactly. What's the use of a Dialogue or communication then? You pretend as if there is. What's the to discuss? Why do Black folks need or should communicate with White people about "Racial Issues" when there is nothing to figure out. YOU DON'T MAKE SENSE. If you truly believe that then there is nothing left to be said since there is nothing to figure out. ....Oh and what happened to:
I presume you are included in those NUT CASES. Your Apologetics can only work when you include yourself and the overwhelming majority of White people in that NUT CASE category. Hmmm.... DEAD ON? Or wrong, DW? MAKE THE LIST and stop try to hide and find an out. "Please... Produce the LIST of Black Requests that fall on Deaf White Ears because the changes Black people requests/require White people make don't apply to [them]..." The list summarises to "stop making my life tough". Be sure to understand that I'm not claiming that white people (and not the nuts, who can be ignored in this context) aren't making life tough for black people. I agree, we are. The problem is, the mechanisms at play aren't visible to white people. The result is visible, somewhat, but not the mechanisms. If you were to experience white existence, even vicariously, you would understand that. And you said all of that to say what? Mechanism Visibility has what to do with "It's Not Me!"??? That was your assertion about Black Requests: That Black People are alleging that average, everyday Whites as opposed to The "Real" Racist Nut Cases (let White people tell it) have to "stop doing" certain things Whites, generally, are not doing. Now, you're shifting... This mechanism idea does not correlate with your claim. That is clearly VISIBLE.
Which is it? Are Black people alleging that White people are "making Black life tough" and Black people are correct in saying that? Or are Black people not wrong in some respect? What have Black people told White people to "quit doing", accusing them... when White people weren't doing it? That was your original angle. MAKE THAT LIST. You said that BS. But since you say you "agree" White people are making life tough on Black people... You and I both know you're saying White folks are indeed "DOING" something and NOT refraining from it and are merely looking for an excuse, an out hence they(you) claim, "It's Not Me!"... "It's them Nut Cases (that are irrelevant in this context."
I told you, you got the wrong guy. I don't buy that BS. WHAT IS THERE TO TALK ABOUT? You see the RESULTS but you say, "Oh well...". LYING you continue, "It's not me." Confronted you concede, "It is." Desperate, looking for an out you pray, "Can't You See I Can't See?" If asked why, like one of the Three Stooges you'll admit, "I got my eyes closed." Too convoluted... Too shifty... Too ridiculous. Ya'll ain't that damn dumb. If you can see that you're "making life hard" on someone then you are, by extension, viewing the mechanisms by which you are "making life hard"... If you can see those mechanisms, then you can also use your God-given intellect, etc., etc., etc. to STOP and/or CHANGE what you are doing. Are you proposing there is some addiction (to making life hard(er) on Black people) that I need to vicariously come to grips with? You know, some type of pathology Whites have where they just can't STOP THEMSELVES? What you say doesn't make sense. That's all the more reason why I suggested you keep your mouth shut. It would be better for you obviously. All you've done is made a bigger hole... So you hope you can plead insanity or helplessness. Nice. What you say doesn't make sense. If you were white, it would. If you just tried to live the white experience, it would. All three items you state are simultaneously the case. Check around and see if that's not consistent with your experience. Consider the potential that it's a more accurate statement of what's going on than all white people are lying to you.
I told you, you got the wrong guy. I don't buy that BS. WHAT IS THERE TO TALK ABOUT? What is there to experience? THERE IS NOTHING TO FIGURE OUT. WHAT IS THERE TO TALK ABOUT? Solutions which might actually work. THERE IS NOTHING TO FIGURE OUT. The central question is the question of WILL. WILL you stay on your side of the street is foremost. You've shown you can't even do that here. And that's just talking about some basic things. Lip Service, too, is very VISIBLE. Don't lie and say you want to talk solutions when you claim/feign Blindness. When you embrace and clutch it with a death grip. Oh but if you really want to start... You can start with White Majority Rule and with that a few choice things you know you don't want to deal with.
You haven't suggested one. You haven't suggested anything but a fantasy about Black people haing some out-of-body experience.
White people lie to themselves. And as long as (collective) you do, nothing will work but simply deciding white people are what they are and refuse to change. If you just tried to live the white experience... Is this a line from a new ad campaign for Ralph Lauren's Polo Collection?
There has been no Failure of Imagination when it has come to ways in which "White people make life hard on Black people." Funny how White people have imagined the great mechanism of "Affirmative Action" as "reverse discrimination", etc. Funny how they can see that. ColorBLIND In One Eye, I guess... Funny how White people have a bunch of personal anecdotes when it comes to something like that. Talking about Lies White People Tell Other People About Themselves (if not themselves, too):
If you just tried to live the white experience... Is this a line from a new ad campaign for Ralph Lauren's Polo Collection? It's a line used by one of those old fashioned pusher-men. I said goddamn goddamn the pusher man. (Steppenwolf)
You haven't suggested one. The solution I'm implying here is that a better understanding of white people by black people will eventually yield a beter understanding of unfairness by white people, which in turn will yield less unfairness.
I said goddamn goddamn the pusher man.
I'm familiar with Steppenwolf's song. I think you're losing your sense of humor here.
That's so backward... How does my understanding that (collective) you are blind help you see? At what point in the process do white people take responsibility for themselves? Which means one of two things: either whites are clueless about black people, friendships, or both; or black folks are mighty damned busy, running from white house to white house to white house, being our friends..." - Tim Wise Given that this is an exaggeration to make a point, there is a grain of truth to his observation. Let's analyze this speciman of a liar. We might learn something which allows progress. Consider an abstract white man. He has a friendly relationship with two black people; he talks to them a couple of times a week while doing his daily business. They seem to enjoy him, he enjoys them. They don't discuss racial issues. They know their politics disagre, and don't go there either. Pollster asks, "do you have any close black friends". Choices:
So our white guy thinks it over a bit, (sometimes taking less than a second, but still traversing the question). He does know that neither of these people qualify as "close friends", so the accurate answer is "no". But in his mind, he's hearing a different question. "Are you willing to have a close black friend?", or even "do you like black people?". Those unstated questions rule out his answering "no". He's honestly and sincerely willing to have black people part of his personal life. So he redefines "close friend" to include a more casual, pleasant relationship. Once that's done, his answer is clear "multiple such friends". Now as NM claimed, our white guy lied. As P6 claimed: White people lie to themselves. How does my understanding that (collective) you are blind help you see? If you knew I was blind, you wouldn't demand I look at you to see you.
I don't. The demands I make are of the system I'm supposed to be a full member of. Correction: I want you to live under the rules you'd impose on everyone else. That's close enough for you to see.
BRAVISSIMO!!!! given the genesis of this thread, that is a flawless denial of evasion. I want you to live under the rules you'd impose on everyone else. That's close enough for you to see. Not quite right as a statement of our disagreement. My rules would require people to not only not be murderers, but to distance themselves from murderers. Some people are born distanced from murderers. Others are born close. The ones born close I expect to take some action. Same rules for everyone, but not everyone is affected equally. Consider the alternative. We accept a large group in our midst which harbors murderers, and the murderers gain power over us in various ways. Not good for anyone.
So, you believe in Affirmative Action now. So, you believe in Affirmative Action now. Topic for another day. Trying to avoid politics for the moment.
Sorry, they're unavoidably connected. More properly, race-conscious policies supporting the economic empowerment of the Black communities on the same scale said empowerment was given to the mainstream communities would be demanded if we accept that principle. That is the "differential impact" standard, one we've rejected as a nation...when discussing race-based discrimination. You're asking Black Americans to act affirmatively to gain the understanding that would allow white people to continue in the blindness you admit they suffer from. You need to work on white people. YOU need to work on white people. Or are you asking the vast majority of Muslim Americans that have nothing to do with terrorism to make public personal pronoucements of their rejection of terrorist tactics whenever a white person gets scared? Because all thei major institutions have already done so. They cannot do what you need done to assuage your fear of Muslims. We cannot do what you need done to assuage your discomfort with Black Americans. Sorry. That's just the way it is. Sorry, they're unavoidably connected. More properly, race-conscious policies supporting the economic empowerment of the Black communities on the same scale said empowerment was given to the mainstream communities would be demanded if we accept that principle. This bears repeating and repeating and repeating... The value of the taxes and government fees that black Americans paid for generation after generation was expropriated and used not for the benefit of the American people as a whole and certainly not for the communities and neighborhoods that blacks were literally forced to live in for generation after generation, but for the benefit, almost exclusively of overwhelmingly white communiites, neighborhoods and people. Or are you asking the vast majority of Muslim Americans that have nothing to do with terrorism to make public personal pronoucements of their rejection of terrorist tactics whenever a white person gets scared? Because all thei major institutions have already done so. The more that American Muslims apologize for terrorist acts that they have not committed or had anything to do with the more closely they will be identified in the American public mind with terrorism.
More delusional, paranoid and pathological displays of grossly overexaggerated fear and COWARDICE. COWARDICE because in both instances, with Muslims and with African-Americans, you want to concoct a convoluted order-process and circumvent all legitimate, proper-functional ones because you can't deal with humanity. Yours or anyone else's. You prefer to invert it, the human-to-human relationship, to subvert the humanity of others. A humanity you refuse to see (chosen, preferred, socialized Blindness) due to Fear based the intra-personal Cowardice involved in retro-respecting those humanities as that retro-proposition reflects, within you, poorly on yours. So you forego your own humanity and soul in the process for the "safety" and security you feel you gain. Now matter how "hard" it is on others, you expect it, for your security. Never taking risks, you seek the risk-free and transfer your burden. It's a tradition. You honor tradition, reflexively though ever so consciously. Sleepwalking, you are of age but, yet, as a child - a slave to a tradition you don't want to give up despite the human costs. You consider losing that tradition a lost. So you trade your humanity at the costs of others.
Or are you asking the vast majority of Muslim Americans that have nothing to do with terrorism to make public personal pronoucements of their rejection of terrorist tactics whenever a white person gets scared? Not especially. Because all thei major institutions have already done so. No, they haven't. A denunciaiton of terrorism in abstract terms is the first step. Some western Muslim mosques have done this. Many western mosques continue to publicly state that western values in general and America in particular are the enemy of Islam, and in the long run need to be destroyed. Combined with an abstract statement about terrorism, the call for destruction overpowers the anti-terrorist statement, which is exactly what the mosque had in mind. A very few mosques, some in America, some in England, have taken strong stands against terrorism. Crucial to the stand is a statement that the all Muslims should report activity which raises suspicion of murder to the police.
this muslim blather is a proxy for his anxiety about you n*ggaz..., and it has been from the very beginning. hassenpfeffer is as mendacious as he wanna be about the historical and continuing truth of the mattter...,
Documentation please? Seriously. Hearsay is insufficient. Abstract Statements... Well, call that STRIKE ONE! Strong Statements AGAINST... Well, since "Oh, well..." was your essential refrain, STRIKE TWO! The Absence of stated Strong Stands & Reporting Activities, the attendant WHITE DENIAL and the constant attack against the AFRICAN (in the African-American) which White Americans have historically declared the Enemy Of "America" seeking to forever destroy any semblance of that AFRICAN (and hence all of Black Humanity)... STRIKE THREE!!!! You're OUT!!! Yet you still contest clear calls against you. (The calls for the Destruction of the AFRICAN, the attendant resistance to change the admitted "making of life hard", overpowers any vain professions of non-racism. Anti-Racism doesn't know you. You are an anathema to it. Which explains you Export of that Peculiar Domestic Product.) Assuming the assets while decrying the CONSEQUENCES. Still... Looking For Love In All The Wrong Places. I guess Muslims are supposed to love Western Values. So much so that they accept the destruction of their own values to accomodate the West. We're back to that equation again: White = Good. Documentation please? Seriously. Hearsay is insufficient. How many of these would it take? http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-06-17-imam-convicted_x.htm
Some assert that Islam itself is undergoing a civil war, with those who would adopt a more Christian like role on one side, and those who seek to put every human being under Islamic domination on the other. You want documentation that Muslims kill women who marry against family wishes? How about documentation that Muslims would execute gays? I think it's worth repeating: the man who killed Theo Van Gough was on exactly the same meme as was James Earl Ray. He thought he was doing what "his people" needed done. He was shutting this man up who he disagreed with. I'm [STILL] interested in how Dwshelf feels White Racist Terrorists are comparable to Islamic Terrorists. It's historically clear that the impetus and even the objectively observed objective(s) of the two are very different. Yet he has entertained the analogue between the two without one peep about them being incomparable.
DW, you know White Terrorism was intent of defending, extending and maintaining WHITE RACIST DOMINANCE. Yet you compare it to so-called Islamic Terrorism against the West (desperate, you've grasped at the straws of the "Islamic" domestic product) that does not dominate the West and has no such power to subjugate the West to its "Islamic domination." SUPER POWER (the U.S. alone) vs. Osama's Band of Merry Bandits. PLEASE!!!!!!!!! Too damn delusional... Oh, the Pathology of the Projectionists.
Hmm.... Now we get to the heart of it. Since it's clear there is and has been no such "Islamic Dominance" over the West as there was WHITE RACIST DOMINANCE over America (overlording with Brutality and SLAVERY/Apartheid for African-Americans in particular), we get the unwitting admittance, once again, that WHITE = GOOD. Obviously no one should object to Western Values on any bases. They are the "broadly shared morality." The fact that MORALITY was "IMPOSED" on RACIST WHITE AMERICA... ummm... because it was RACIST, torturous, murderous, terrorists in nature towards the ends of perpetuating WHITE RACIST DOMINANCE really doesn't make it any less comparable to the ever-so pending "Islamic Dominance." The idea that Western Values and its magnificant MORALITY has been "IMPOSED" on the Arab/Muslim World is good for them. They need to evolve... Resistance Is Futile... They Will Be Assimilated! This "shared MORALITY" begs the question: Who's trying to dominate whom? Oh, the Pathology of the Projectionists still having to learn their lessons the hard way (why you think that BS will fly here, I don't know):
Say Bye, Bye to your analogue. "Scare Those Left Alive" into doing WHAT?? The evidence of Islamic World Takeover vs. the evidence of Western/WHITE World Dominance. There is no comparison save for in the twisted, delusional and guilt-complex (and self-justifying) mind of someone paranoid about "Others" Doing Unto Him What He Has Done To "Others." ... To the next episode please... "... Pinky and the Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain!" Documentation please? Seriously. Hearsay is insufficient. Let's see...you got one in the USofA, and one listed twice in England. I got, let's see...
You need one whole hell of a lot more that that.
I want documentation that it has any impact on YOU at all. If you want to respond to statistical outliers...the one in thousands that isn't even anywhere near you...the threat that's less likely than getting struck by lightning...fine. You get to be a coward or fool if you choose to.
I can't take Shelf anymore. I have to break in. Shelf, you haven't been able to prove a single assertion you've made here. Three links to three newspaper articles don't prove your claim that "many" or "most" (can't remember which one you said) Western mosques preach hate against the West. Two of the people featured in items you linked to are loathed by the Muslim community in England. Finding out that information takes only a few seconds (as that community has been very vocal about their disapproval of those two indviduals) and it's intellectually dishonest for you not to point that out. I could go out there and find links about three White people saying they hate Blacks and others, but could I, in the spirit of honesty and truth, then claim that "most" or "many" Whites hate Blacks (based on that alone)? No. Of course, your contributions to this thread have been intellectually dishonest from the get-go, as you struggle to justify your hatred of Muslims (American and otherwise) -- starting with your unproven assertion that "99% of terrorism" is committed by Muslims. BTW, these "five questions" of Prager's, which seem to be lifted word-for-word from the neocon playbook, have been answered very well, and in detail, by a variety of Muslim bloggers and activists, as well as Prof. Juan Cole (Informed Comment blog). "Scare Those Left Alive" into doing WHAT?? Into keeping their mouths shut. You disagree with that? What do you suggest instead?
Three links to three newspaper articles don't prove your claim that "many" or "most" (can't remember which one you said) Western mosques preach hate against the West. Here's what I said:
I know several Amercan Muslims. None of them hate the west. None of them are terrorists. Maybe half of them would agree with a statement that "American values are the enemy of Islam, and in the long run need to be destroyed". Do you disagree with that? Two of the people featured in items you linked to are loathed by the Muslim community in England. Certainly not all of that Muslim community. Both maintained active leadership positions until the British government cracked down on them. Why didn't the members of these mosques get rid of them? Because they liked what they were hearing??? Finding out that information takes only a few seconds (as that community has been very vocal about their disapproval of those two indviduals) and it's intellectually dishonest for you not to point that out. I did point it out. That's exactly the kind of reaction I was hoping for from western Muslims, and in some cases it has been there. What it is not is universal.
I think it's worth repeating: the man who killed Theo Van Gough was on exactly the same meme as was James Earl Ray. He thought he was doing what "his people" needed done. He was shutting this man up who he disagreed with.
DW, I'm beginning to suspect that you are just a tad dishonest. I raised this issue with you for or five days ago and you never responded to my question. You have now made the assertion again and, again, you have not seen fit to provide any basis for your claim. If the basis for a connection between the murders of these two people was a desire on the part of their murderers to shut them up then one could argue that the same rationale is also used by most spousal batterers to explain and limply justify abusing their partners. If you can't do better than this you need to pack up your gear and head back to the ranch.
CoIntelPro agents. If the basis for a connection between the murders of these two people was a desire on the part of their murderers to shut them up then one could argue that the same rationale is also used by most spousal batterers to explain and limply justify abusing their partners. Eh? Spousal batterers are seeking to maintain control of an individual. In cultures where that control is legally codified, the battery tends to be justifiable on such grounds. In cultures such as America where such control has no legal basis, there is no justification available to the batterer. Assissination of an individual who is having an effect on the contemporary mechanisms of society seems quite different. But I'm interested PT in hearing your analysis of what motivated James Earl Ray? What was he hoping for?
Spousal batterers are seeking to maintain control of an individual...
By making him or her, but mostly her, shut up. There are a few rare sociopaths who don't require that their domestic partner talk before physically assaulting them but in most cases these incidents begin with a verbal argument. And a sure way to shut someone's mouth is to punch them senseless. I am not going to dignify your lack of response by offering you any analysis about James Earl Ray other than my belief that he did not act alone and that he was part of a conspiracy to murder Dr. King.
I am not going to dignify your lack of response Please consider the potential that I did my best, PT. I did. I'll try again if you'd like. he did not act alone and that he was part of a conspiracy to murder Dr. King. So why would they want to murder Dr. King?
watch old peter cottontail....., come on PT...I know it didn't take that long...your boy ddub has been frontin' since day 1. more than a bit dishonest too.
What a stupid question. DW, you can gather information for your rhetorical purposes, but your attempts to bullshit us are getting insulting. So why would they want to murder Dr. King?
Not for the same reasons that folks wanted to clip Theo van Gogh.
Theo van Gogh. I thank you for the spelling lesson in any case, PT.
ridin in the bunny chair frozen in a rearview stare...,
_Noam Chomsky_ One more thing PT. I had a cheap collection of Glenn Miller recordings, which I played during a trip with my parents, who recalled them fondly from their earlier years. (It took me a while to get to Glenn Miller: I expected they might know of bluegrass, or Bob Wills, or ..., but they'd never heard any of that). Glenn Miller. So I gave them the 3-CD set. A year later I hear their review. Mom likes them just as is. Dad likes the instrumentals. They inquire as to how they might get some more instrumentals. Dad mentions that he likes jazz. Now if you knew my dad, hearing that he likes jazz is hard to interpret. I never knew him to listen to jazz at all. I suspect he had something in mind, but I'm not sure what. But I'm going to order them my best shot. I find a few "big band jazz" collections. But I think, if Dad wants some jazz, I'm going to send him some jazz. So I addeded "Kinda Blue" to the order.
I didn't realize this message was being posted on this thread. It's not appropriate. I wasn't paying attention.
More on Al Qaeda -- the database primitive but interesting website, you'll need to copy the above sentence and use your browsers find function on this four foot long webpage, but the article itself is most interesting...,
I appreciate your making note of it. Please forgive my going off track there PT (and P6). My brain doesn't always include all relevant factors. It seemed the right thing to do at the time. nulan. i must say that the link re: the treatment of folks in iraq is very caroll quigley TAH. it's compelling stuff because it is culturally consistent with so-called anglo-aryan practice. muy interesante. T3, are you referring to the fallujah + willie pete link? "the database" I dunno if you recall all the carping that was going on in the early going about the use of daisy cutters and fuel-air explosives in Afghanistan.., but that's also some sheer moral horror ish. I remember very clearly some of my AA cronies soiling themselves in devilish glee over the technical minutia of the carnage that ensues from the use of these weapons. Matter of fact, one old dood that I go shooting with from time to time {vietnam vet, retired 5-O} was sending out so many bootleg military vehicular videos on his email chain that I had to dev/null his azz for a few months cause I could not wrap my head around his insatiable enthusiasm for thanatopornography..., sorry bout the mixup, time for me to stop procrastinating on my real work when I can no longer keep my postings straight....,
Here's a prediction: when the US does seriously approach leaving Iraq, the Sunnis will be begging us to stay, because we're their only protection. Any article which begins with an assertion that the US used chemical weapons in Iraq is preaching to a choir, attempting to raise the zealotry quotient, rather than attempting something like pursuasion. If you like this author CN, what do you predict would happen if the US just pulled out? DW, I predict that if you continue the mendacious reality evasions you've demonstrated on this thread, you'll become an object of permanent ridicule....,
Fewer Americans would die. But no one is talking about "just pulling out" but Republicans in any case.
After having denied up and down that certain uses of white phosphorous cross the line into chemical weaponization, and every good old boy and his cousin know the horrific use of willie peter going at least as far back as genocidal party time in Vietnam, Peter Brookes got cold busted by a well informed caller on Washington Journal who forced him to admit the error of what he'd just been protesting, i.e., it is in fact possible to misuse white phosphorous as a chemical weapon. Brookes improvised post hoc rationalization, misuse of white phosphorous crossing the chemical weapons line, i.e., to chemically flush entrenched combatants, "it was a tactical error by the commander in the field at that moment!!!" Simply a misjudgement, not a violation of the chemical weapons treaty to which the U.S. is a signatory..., Few things are more hateful to me than lying..., people of the word are such careful and systematic liars...., having elevated this sin to a fine art and comprehensive way of life. he's already an object of ridicule for me...been done for about two months with that dude. funny, but trifling. anyway, cnu, interesting posts and great links as usual... It depends on what your intent is. If your intent is to equate the use of WP with the use of poison gas, and the actions of the US with the actions of Saddam Hussein, that's a statement aimed at those who don't see much difference between the US and Saddam Hussein in the first place. War is war. You try to kill people. Strange as it might seem, it's legal to try to burn them to death, or to start a fire which flushes them out where they get shot. It was very common during WWII. It's also legal to drop nuclear bombs on them, which has got to make the point that "legal" has one odd definition here. The whole notion of "legal" vs "illegal" war tactics is a creation of WWI trench warfare and the use of poison gas. Turns out that the use of poison gas to fight trench warfare is a way to get a lot of people dead qickly, but not necessarily the people you want dead. Given its loose cannon nature, it seemed like a good idea to just get everyone to agree to fight wars without it. While they were at it, why not agree to limit some other kinds of things like how prisoners would be treated. The had core problem of course is that there is no God to enforce these things. There's only the winner of a war to enforce them upon the loser. But to the poison gas thing: there's been no evidence that the US has used poison gas, generated by a WP fire or not, to kill people, or even that a single person was killed due to the gasses emitted from a WP fire (which wouldn't violate the conventions in any case, unless that's what you were tryint to do). In order to violate the agreement, you have to be trying to kill or injure people by use of poison gas. The fact that poison gasses are somethimes the side effect of fires does not imply that the use of fire is then banned. Of course, people debate that, and sometimes people on both sides don't tell the whole story. But no one is talking about "just pulling out" but Republicans in any case. From the current Yahoo front page:
You keep confusing protesters with people that have impact. I don't see how you can equate Cindy Sheehan's position with that of any politician. Until you can find a playa with that position, the statement stands: no one is talking about "just pulling out" but Republicans, and they only do it in the process of erecting strawmen.
What exactly is your intent shelf? Now that you're back down to your persistent bone of contention, i.e., that whatever Quigley's hegemons do is legitimate, moral, defensible - while whatever their former non-Muslim satraps/puppets do is illegitimate, indefensible, depraved - you're barking up a tree that won't help validate any of your manufactured biases, be these anti-Muslim, anti-Black, or anti-hegemontarget du jour..., nobody here seems to be buying any of what you're selling. The only salient question of intent in this discussion goes to the fact that seventy per cent of the world's current hydrocarbon reserves flow under the feet of Muslims. Seven of the eight major sea routes have Muslim nations as littoral states, and these factors have brought an intense political interface between the Washington-led forces of hegemony and Muslim oppositionality to the same. nobody here seems to be buying any of what you're selling. I'm an amateur CN, I have nothing for sale. that whatever Quigley's hegemons do is legitimate, moral, defensible Not. Was Katrina legitimate, moral, or defensible? Hannibal? Alexander? Consider Napoleon's invasion of Russia. Was the invasion legitimate, moral or defensible? Was the starvation of the French on the run legitimate, moral or defensible? Maybe not. But that doesn't change reality. Shit happens. You react, or not, and live or die with the results of your reaction. The biggest human disasters are shown to be when men follow a man without question. A man who initially succeeds, but eventually fails, catastrophically. It's not an equation to be analyzed in terms of morals, it's to be analyzed in terms of how likely you are to die as a result of your reaction. Except in low-speed eddies of time and geography, legitimacy, morals, or defensibility have NOTHING to do with international survival. Because there's no God enforcing them. The winners make the rules and write the history.
You keep confusing protesters with people that have impact. I don't see how you can equate Cindy Sheehan's position with that of any politician. A hard timetable isn't much better than an immediate pullout.
You originally raised the issue of pursuasion DW. On a thread having to do with Prager's demand for universal Muslim disavowel of militants, and on which you've darted from one end of the explanatory spectrum to the other peddling rationales in support of your and Prager's alleged fear of Islam, I'd say you surely qualify as being in pursuit of a version of consensus reality that you want folks who hang out here to buy into and support.
Cut out the strawstorm shelf..., Is my summary of objective reality in any way deficient? the fact that seventy per cent of the world's current hydrocarbon reserves flow under the feet of Muslims. Seven of the eight major sea routes have Muslim nations as littoral states, and these factors have brought an intense political interface between the Washington-led forces of hegemony and Muslim oppositionality to the same. If not, all that really remains open to question is the intent, the ethics, and the morality of those engaged in the political struggle for control of the objective goods. I don't feel threatened by militant elements within Islam. I do feel threatened by the reactionary incompetents currently mismanaging hegemonic affairs out of the Washington office. Maybe after everything is said and done, it really just boils down to a question of competency.
My skills are sufficiently fungible that they will serve to engender a comfortable livelihood no matter who wins the hegemonic political struggle. My moral citiques are a matter of public record, so your dismissiveness of the moral perspective and advocacy of relativism gets you no takers here. I refuse to cheerlead for demonstrably immoral and unethical incompetents. I don't feel threatened by militant elements within Islam. They want you dead or Muslim, but ... I do feel threatened by the reactionary incompetents currently mismanaging hegemonic affairs out of the Washington office. Maybe after everything is said and done, it really just boils down to a question of competency. Let's compare doom & gloom scenarios, cn. Tension is likely to rise between those who live above the oil and those who consume the oil. Tension can only achieve a somewhat low intensity in those civilized eddies of time and geography. As they exceed the threshold, war emerges. Tension is reduced by prosperity, and in history some prosperous civilizations were eventually undone by their own lack of concern. The other way is actually more common. Prosperous civilizations decline into poverty while retaining some military strength, and become miserable to those nearby. In such a scenario, the US declines as the over-spent $US loses value, and $US debt becomes worth pennies and then less on the dollar. It becomes necessary in the minds of most Americans to take the oilfields to defend American livelihood. There's no one to stop us, and we do just that. To ease the transition, we cut England, Europe, Russia, and China into the deal. Basicaly we get half, they collectively get the other half. Over time the other partners come to believe they got a bad deal. China comes to actually be able to threaten the US, and the pie needs to be recut. Sometime during the 2nd (quarter? or half?) of the 21st century the mideast oil seriously starts to run out, and alternatives become required, but international stress boils over as economies suffer the diminished energy flow and western democracies elect men with risky plans to make things better. The real loser in this scenario is continental Europe, and 21st century variants of both Napoleon and Hitler emerge as things get tough. For reasons which make sense to no one, Italy invades Lybia, but is defeated in six days. The US aids Lybia, and later joins a resurgent Denmark in creating first a northern empire, and then moving westward. === Is that sort of what you had in mind cnulan? If so, we agree: that could happen, and something like that is far more likely than most people think.
Sure it is...and it's hella better than having no idea what you're doing. Maybe it's just me, but a lot of people seem to have come to a similar conclusion. The Amman bombings represented a turning point in the terrorism equation. The spectacle of Sunni Muslims murdering Sunni Muslims has driven a real sea-change in the support for Islamic terror. The fact that terrorists are unreliable in their allegiance, downright nutty in their determination of who is the enemy, and imprecise in their targeting is making more and more Muslims willing to attack any underpinnings of terror which might be found locally. Remains to be seen.
You'd do better to focus on getting your historical and contemporary bona fides in order before endeavoring projective "what ifs" - even if only for pure entertainment purposes. google "oil crash scenarios" if you want to amuse yourself with projective doom and gloom.., google "oil crash scenarios" if you want to amuse yourself with projective doom and gloom.., I was interested in your scenario, cn. Googling "cnulan oil crash scenario" indeed gets five hits, but none of them seem to illustrate your vision. The suggested misspelling is a bit humorus, though. google cnulan oil crash scenario
"DW, what do you call a rabbit who swims with sharks?" Dammnnn! Ya'll having rabbit for dinner again? I hope dat shit's low in cholesterol.
So y'all might wonder if I don't get to feeling unwelcome. I don't. Everyone knows how to unwelcome a poster: you ignore them. So I take interaction as friendly, regardless of explicit disclaimers otherwise. Or if not friendly, at least participatory in my quest for understanding. Sometimes I wonder if I'm having a nigger experience, seeking acceptance but always being denied by the majority power structure no matter how well I do or how hard I try. But I come back for more. I research myself too. After I posed the racism problem, white people are collectively responsible for racism but no individual white person feels responsible, I applied it to myself: what am I doing which is part of the problem. I'm not a cop, I don't stop anyone for DWB. I do influence hiring decisions, and (in accord with both my wishes and the intent of my company) I'm always hoping more qualified black applicants will be available. I identified one way which I treat the races differently: I'm actually more likely to interact with black strangers than white strangers, always pleasant. Now underlying that difference lurks some evil dark corner of my soul I'm sure, but I feel confident that if I can contain its effect to the symptom observed, that's not any problem we're trying to address. So I concluded, again, like all white people, that I am not the problem. Not even a little bit. Not at all. So last night watching Court TV we came to the story of a murdered 37 year old black woman whose body was found under an urban bridge. It crossed my mind that knowing no more the victim than that, she didn't rank very high on my sympathy scale. I recognized that if a 37 year old white woman had been murdered, I would rank her higher. This insight seemed striking enough to analyze a bit further. "What if they had been 71 year old women found in similar circumstances, one black, one white, how would you rank those as victims?" I had to think a bit to make sure I was being truthful. "The same. Way bad." "What if they had been 6 year old girls, one black, one white, how would you rank those as victims?" The same. About equal to the 71 year old women. About as high as I can rank victims. "So what is it with this ranking business, aren't all people equally human?" "All people are equally human, but that doesn't make me care the same about them if they get murdered." "Start at the other side. Describe an unsympathetic murder victim." "Gangbanger." "Why no sympathy?" "Don't really care if he dies. World is a better place with him dead. Because he's a criminal himself, who has already murdered someone and got away with it, or would have murdered someone if he hadn't got his first." "So does criminal behavior reduce one's ranking as a murder victim?" "Yeah. Well, not always. But participating in a crime raises one's chance for being murdered, comes with the territory, a risk the victim accepted." "So do you think that a 37 year old black victim found under a bridge was likely more involved with crime than a 37 year old white victim?" "Yes. Um, well, I dunno. Lots of times such bodies turn out to have been prostitutes." "So what's correlating with what to make a black victim different from a white victim in such a case?" "I don't know if it does. Maybe some wishful thinking regarding the white woman I declined to engage in regarding the black woman." So now I realized I was at a place where I was making presumptions without facts, or even a strong intuition as to the facts. I suspect it's the case that female bodies found under bridges are highly likely to have been prostitutes, regardless of their race. But from now on I have to review my sympathy rankings on a regular basis. A small part of the problem to be sure. But above zero. ---- Epilogue: a question. Do black people tend to feel more sympathetic over black crime victims than they do over white crime victims?
always and everywhere, remember yourself..., always and everywhere, remember yourself..., Tell us a story of yourself, CN. Your real self.
It's not something I think about. "What is that crap?", said the new thread to the dead thread. The dead thread simply gasped as its last breath fled with haste from the body. The last wordz of the dead thread were, "Kill me, kill me quickly. I've lost my way." |
|
This site best viewed with a jaundiced eye
|
||
I especially liked his closing:
"We await your response."
As if he was speaking for the entire non-Muslim world. That's arrogance allright.