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

[conuly]

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.

Comments

[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?

[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.

[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.

.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.