conuly | Report: Most Americans Now Getting Their News While Peeking Out Between Fingers

And I bet you thought the stories in The Onion were made up.

If you're worried about the news... well, I don't know what to do about the right wing, or about white supremacists, but we may be able to do something about the nukes. Now, normally I'd say they're no threat because nobody would be foolish enough to launch one, but....

Well, anyway. Call your congresscritters and ask them to cosponsor the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act. This would require the sitting president to get Congressional approval before using Nuclear Weapons for any purpose other then retaliation - and I think it's safe to say that nobody else would ever be dumb enough to hit first, so we'd never use them.

You can check to see if your congressfolk are cosponsors at these links:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/669/cosponsors
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/200/cosponsors

If they're already cosponsers, call them up to thank them. They need all the thanks they can get.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

conuly

I think it can work. Outreach does work. That's why religious groups do it. That's why white supremacist organizations do it - they target unhappy, disaffected people and give them a group.

But it's understandable that individuals who have been harmed, directly or indirectly, by white supremacists may not have the "spoons" necessary to do this. That's a personal choice that each of us has to make on our own.

I also think you should read the article. It's really very interesting :)

From:

amyvanhym

When I say talk with them I don't mean talk at them. The ratio of proselytization to listening in the current political atmosphere is insanely high already. I mean question them and listen to their answers in good faith, in order to understand why they believe what they believe, and find common ground where they're right, and use that as a foundation for meaningful discussion.

What I see happening again and again is this: groups of likeminded people cluster together and talk together about the beliefs of designated outgroups, 'educating' and 'informing' one another about the outgroups, without ever acquiring verification from the outgroups that the representations are accurate, and even using censorship to actively prevent outgroups from accurately representing themselves. Then ingroup members scream at, attack, generalize about and further silence individuals based not on what those individuals or their alleged group has actually said or done, but rather based on what they've been told by people who already hate the outgroup. As censorship increases, so does hate. As hate mounts, so does aggression. Currently, physical attacks and threats of violence and even murder are common.

This has to change.

You said you don't know what to do about "the right wing or white supremacists." Yet now, you seem only interested in discussing the white supremacists. Surely you aren't equating the whole right wing -- that is, half the US population -- with white supremacists?

Edited Date: 2017-08-15 07:20 pm (UTC)

From:

conuly

I believe you misunderstood me. When I said "the right wing" I did not mean "anybody right of center". Likewise, when I say "the left wing" I don't mean "anybody left of center". I meant extremists.

When I say talk with them I don't mean talk at them.

Neither do I, and I'm not sure where you got the idea that I do.

From:

amyvanhym

Yep, I did misunderstand, probably from encountering many misuses of 'wing' to characterize opposition as extreme whether it is or isn't, without having looked into the true definition myself. So thank you for that.

I got the idea that you interpreted "talk with" as "talk at" because in response to my advocacy of talking with opponents, you jumped immediately to describing the efficacy of proselytization. Plenty of extreme ideological groups, including racists, feminists and religious fundamentalists, take advantage of (and even create) unhappiness in potential adherents in order to enlist them for their cause.

But I'm not advocating for that. I'm advocating for just talking, as I clarified. Even extremists can be talked with. Whatever their extreme beliefs, if they still believe in the value of free expression and discourse, there's hope for deescalation.

From:

conuly

I didn't say proselytization. That doesn't work - not when they do it, not when we do it. I said outreach. Friendship?

From:

amyvanhym

I agree you didn't say "proselytization," but you did describe proselytization. Proselytization is outreach for the purpose of conversion. You said "outreach" and described manipulation/advantage-taking for the purpose of conversion. That's why I used the word "proselytization." You described a type of it.

But anyway! That's not really the imporant thing. I think the important thing is talking, and not fighting. To be more succinct about what I generally mean: folks should try not to act this way or these ways (not that I'm saying you personally do), and should also draw attention to the problem when people who claim to be against hate act this way. If enough people on the left do that, the extremism on the right should stop metastasizing. And then yes, even friendship can happen! :P

From:

conuly

You said "outreach" and described manipulation/advantage-taking for the purpose of conversion

See, this is why you should've read the link, and not just because it's interesting :)

From:

amyvanhym

I don't see how that follows. I simply described your wording. An external article has nothing to do with that. I'm afraid I'm not interested in reading lengthy anecdotal articles. I'm seeking out conversations like the one we're having because I'm frightened by escalating political violence in the West and I want it to end.

Since it doesn't seem we'll get much more out of this conversation, and I've said just about all I'd like to say, I just want to add one more thing to the list of stuff to do:

Speak out against anti-white racism.

The concept of racial privilege being inherently linked to someone because of their race is racist, no matter what their race, and yet it is extremely common on the left to engage in such racism specifically against whites. Unless this racism loses its popularity, the racial identitaraian backlash on the right will continue to grow.

.

Edited Date: 2017-08-16 12:02 am (UTC)

From:

conuly

The concept of racial privilege being inherently linked to someone because of their race is racist, no matter what their race, and yet it is extremely common on the left to engage in such racism specifically against whites.

No. It's not. You can only think that if you are completely misunderstanding the definition of the word "privilege". It is not racist to say that blacks are more likely to get shot by the police than whites, or that blacks are more likely to be arrested for marijuana use than whites (despite whites using marijuana more) and to get stiffer sentences once they are arrested.

This is what the word privilege means. It means that if everything else is equal, people in one group have an easier time of it than people in another group. It does not mean that those people are personally at fault for this situation, or are bad people. And I have never, not once, witnessed anybody claiming it does mean that - except in this sort of "well, that's racist!" comment.

From:

amyvanhym

You are correct that it is not racist to reference race-related statistics. However, it is racist to make causal assumptions based on those statistics when only correlation is given (which you have done here), and it is doubly racist to base generalizations on those trends and apply them to individuals. Individuals are treated as "privileged," in that they are expected to behave in certain ways and accept race-based barriers in their personal lives because of their race, and that is racist. It is racially oppressive to expect anyone to take responsibility for allegations against their race or for the trends of their race, regardless of whether they're also called a "bad person" at the same time.

If you're not promoting racism, good. I applaud you. But be aware that plenty do, and something will need to be done about that as part of the process of doing something about white identitarians/nationalists.

I've got one question for you, and please be reasonable: do you believe there can be such a thing as racism against whites?

From:

conuly

I've got one question for you, and please be reasonable: do you believe there can be such a thing as racism against whites?

I can't answer that until you bother to define the term "racism". And I'm not willing to do your footwork for you when you're in my space accusing me of being "unreasonable".

Individuals are treated as "privileged," in that they are expected to behave in certain ways and accept race-based barriers in their personal lives because of their race, and that is racist

In the US, white people do not have race-based barriers in their personal lives. If you believe that, then you are sorely mistaken.

From:

amyvanhym

Please answer the question. Naturally, the relevant definition/s of racism will be part of your answer. Unwillingness to answer such a simple question suggests you might have some racist beliefs.

I did not accuse you of being "unreasonable." I asked you to be reasonable. Please be reasonable. No matter what "space" a person is in, one should always strive to be reasonable.

We live in a world of limited resources, so descrimination in favor of one is necessarily also discrimination against another. This means racial affirmative action is a race-based barrier.

.

Edited (accidentally a word) Date: 2017-08-16 01:23 am (UTC)

From:

conuly

I am absolutely not going to answer the question until you define your terms. You asked it, you be clear.

And now I will be clear. Saying "please be reasonable", or any phrasing similar to that, is akin to implicitly stating that the other party is not being reasonable. If I go up to my nieces and say "Please don't be a whiny brat", they will naturally feel offended, and this is the same thing.

From:

amyvanhym

Yes, I did imply that you were being unreasonable. An implication is not an accusation. An implication is a relatively subtle and deliberate precursor to an accusation, made to help you check yourself and maintain civility so that an accusation will not become necessary.

You have hardly been reasonable at all this whole time. You have been extremely evasive. You have not engaged with me in good faith. You seem much more interested in arguing about the definition of a widely understood word -- a definition made contentious by racist ideologues in an effort to evade rightful accusations of racism -- than do much of anything about anything at all. I am disappointed.

From:

conuly

Okay, look. This conversation is going nowhere. From my perspective you started off trying to drag me into a conversation about the benefits of talking to people and now are refusing to be clear which definition of a highly contentious word you mean. One of the two of us is being evasive and sort of racist. It's not me. You can hang around, or you can leave, but I'm not continuing this discussion with you.

From:

amyvanhym

We both already used the word "racist" multiple times and you were perfectly fine with those usages. You are the one who brought the definition into question, when I asked you to tell me whether you think there can be racism against white people. That the definition is your contention means it's your responsibility to offer clarification. That you claim to care so much about the definition while paradoxically refusing to offer it makes it clear what your answer is. You don't want to talk about racism, you want to talk about definitions, because you're racist against whites. Just own it.