Ideological purity as a phrase has lost all meaning. Disagreeing with genocide is ideological purity, so whatever I guess.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
the people who steadfastly and obnoxiously refuse to help are not the only potential allies, puffed up liberal savior nonsense aside.
Being accurate and reasonable about who you accuse of genocide also matters. Because otherwise you just hurl inflammatory accusations around carelessly, alienate people, and many stop listening to you because they think you're just a prick. Sating one's own feelings of anger and frustration by hurling righteous indignation and abuse at others is rarely a path to influence and persuasion.
?
do you mean that Israel isn't genociding or that the guy bypassing Congress to provide the artillery shells and massive bombs for the genocide, directing his White House to deny that it's a genocide, and engaging in military action to punish people trying to stop the genocide isn't doing a genocide? both are preposterous.
You only think it's a genocide because they reject that. You let the people you hate decide your opinions for you.
Well, yes, it's certainly a genocide. But it's perfectly possibly to come to that (or other) correct conclusions by means of faulty logic.
Sure, but tstorm isn't taking that approach: he's been arguing that the (mountain of) evidence is insufficient or untrustworthy.
And sniping at Seanchaidh isn't worth enabling that kind of atrocity denial. Nor is it worth detracting from that much more important point in order to throw shade.
Even ignoring the benefits of repeated instruction on how to put on your safety belt, where the clearly marked exits are, that your uncomfortable seat cushion doubles as a floaty, etc, etc you are dramatically less likely to be in a plane crash than a car cash whether you count per hour or per mile. But plane crashes get dramatically more attention, especially by the media and so people assign a belief of risk to them wildly out of proportion with actual risk.
Same thing with active shooter drills in schools - a decent plan may well save lives if it happens, but it's a comparatively rare occurrence that gets blown up by media attention and people become more afraid of it than is reasonable. Moreso than other, more likely risks.
To the extent that, for instance, lawyers have suggested that the UK's legal submissions supporting claims genocide in Myanmar undermines its denials of one occurring in Gaza. And honestly, I would find the ICJ throwing that sort of hypocrisy back in the faces of governments deeply satisfying.
I also accept it won't make a lick of difference, and the response of such countries will just be to demean the ICJ or any other similar international institutions, just like they usually do.
I think it's pretty fair to say Israel is committing genocide, I would consider that opinion uncontroversial outside of contrarians and supporters.
Not really, that article you posted seemed to be about institutional racism, which usually means the police (or insert whatever group) isn't racist anymore.
The person doesn't realize how powerful they are. Why is that a contradiction? Last time I voted, I went to each candidate's page to see their platform and voted on who I thought was best (and guess what, I didn't vote for a single democrat or republican). I didn't care if they had some kind of organized campaign with ads or whatever. It was pretty easy too because the republicans and democrats campaign pages just had bullshit hit pieces on the other guy; basically why the other guy sucks vs why they are good, and that's an immediate no vote from me.
As I said above, I just go to the candidates' site to view their platform so I don't really care about if they have campaign signs/ads/rallies/whatnot.
!?! I have literally no idea how you reached that conclusion. The report was very explicit in stating the racism is still there and still very prominent and widespread.
And what difference did that make?
I didn't read it outside of the headline as it wasn't pertinent to the discussion.
If everyone just voted for the person they felt was best, that's all the organization you need.
You think it wasn't relevant because you didn't read it, and apparently failed to comprehend the headline.
Now, this is a rather naive view of democracy that doesn't work in the American or British systems.
Say you have 3 parties: A, B and C. And rather than left vs right, we'll talk about dogs vs cats.
Say there are 60% cats and 40% dogs in a country. A and B are both cat parties: there are minor differences but they generally lean the same way on the big cat issues.
Half the cats prefer A and half prefer B. And so, the final tally at the election is: A=30%; B=30%; C (the dog party)= 40%.
So, everyone voted for the party they personally thought best, as you say they should. And yet under First Past the Post, the government that emerges is unwanted by 60% of the electorate. All the cats would have preferred A OR B over C.
How do we overcome this? In the absence of electoral reform, through organisation. Cats talk to eachother. Recognise that if they don't want C, then some B-preferrers will need to vote for A, or vice versa.
You don't understand why I think it's about institutional racism?
At least in America, most people vote for democrats/republicans in fear of the other party winning. Nobody really thinks their guy is the best. Just voting for the best person would result in neither party winning. How many democrats actually think Biden is the best candidate?
At least in America, most people vote for democrats/republicans in fear of the other party winning. Nobody really thinks their guy is the best. Just voting for the best person would result in neither party winning. How many democrats actually think Biden is the best candidate?
"The best" exists with the context of from those available to be selected. The USA, de facto, enters every presidential election (and a large number of congressional and senatorial races) with a de facto choice from just two. Sure, there may technically be other people on the ballot, but... I think a huge number of Democrats would say Biden is a better choice than Trump, which (likely) is going to be the decision later in the year. Also, just a note here, the key vote that made Trump president required about 16 million votes. Specifically, the Republican primaries. In a sense, that's how few people really decide who gets to be president.
The other factor is that people don't necessarily vote for the person at all. Party politics predisposes people to vote for a party, irrespective of who it puts up for election. Many Democrats are voting for a Democrat, and precisely which one isn't necessarily that important. They can rely that whoever it is is going to do Democratic Party type things, and that's fine. If Biden is a bit doddery now and dribbles into irrevocable senility 3 days after election, it doesn't matter a damn because Harris will take over and do pretty much exactly the same stuff.
Societies and organisations are more about institutions and institutional powers than individuals. Individuals are more the fine tuning than anything else. Trump's leadership of the Republican Party is not really a victory for his personal attributes. It's that the Republican Party has been shifting for decades, and it hit the transition point where the old, cynical business types gave way to the populists, and he was the guy in the right place at the right time.
The point being, if US politics is rotten, it's because the parties and the system are rotten. You are doomed to shitty candidates forever, because the system and institutions of party and government predispose you to them. Where you get actual good candidates, it's luck not judgement.
Open question for all the Americans: how do you feel about implementing a Single Transferrable Vote or Preferential Voting system in the US? Like they already have in the House vote in Alaska.
I've watched CGP Grey's videos on the subject and am positive but it's possible I've missed something vital that people that live in the country can point to.
I've watched CGP Grey's videos on the subject and am positive but it's possible I've missed something vital that people that live in the country can point to.
What? It is. Its explicitly about institutional racism-- and how racism, homophobia and sexism amongst Metropolitan police officers damage their investigations and trust. I don't understand why you apparently think that's irrelevant to a conversation about far-right presence in urban police (given the topical overlap). Or why you apparently think that means it's in the past.
Right, OK. So apply what I said to this situation.
Say 25% of progressives switch their votes from the Dems to a third party, voting for the best candidate for them. The rest don't, and nor do Republican voters. The result is that those 25% of progressives get a government that reflects them even worse than if they had just voted for the Dems.