AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!

The Black Lives Matters thread.

  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
Status
Not open for further replies.
That article is from Accuracy In Media, which is very right wing. Conservatives have long accused liberal activist groups of having links to communism.

Yeah the article @LuckySmiles posted does come off as pretty extreme and makes it hard to take the communism connection seriously. I don't doubt she has done lot of research but that one was maybe not the best one to use to make the argument? It actually does what I was just saying, purposefully confusing socialism with communism.

For example, "The radical Left model is based on alliances of many organizations that are working on separate issues but dedicated ultimately to the same thing: overthrowing our society in order to replace it with a hardcore socialist (read communist) one."

And also, "Its agitation has provoked police killings and other violence, lawlessness and unrest in minority communities throughout the U.S. If allowed to continue, that agitation could devolve into anarchy and civil war. The BLM crowd appears to be spoiling for just such an outcome."

I don't doubt that there are people involved in organizing the BLM groups who draw from Marxist ideas and socialism. But that is a far cry from wanting civil war and anarchy. There may be groups trying to manipulate the situation for their own agenda but I think the article above is only fear mongering and taking attention away from the actual issue of systemic racism and police violence.

I will keep my eye out for more concrete connections to communism and if I see anything I will post it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Booty_4U


honestly with respect to this whole issue... conservatives seem to be the only ones that make any sense to me. I've tried to find holes in their argument, and I can't.
 
  • Wat?!
  • Like
Reactions: Booty_4U and Mila_


honestly with respect to this whole issue... conservatives seem to be the only ones that make any sense to me. I've tried to find holes in their argument, and I can't.

@LuckySmiles I recommend that you watch this video in full.
 
I get that but... even if you go to the American Communist Party website, for example, The BLM protests are front and center with a huge narrative that completely contradicts the real issues. They keep trying to drive home this idea that slavery is the main cause of this whole thing and it's like...
no.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. So the American Communism Party supports BLM, but that doesn't mean that BLM is communist. The communist thing is coming off as alarmist to me. I understand the skepticism but it's not a clear connection to me.



honestly with respect to this whole issue... conservatives seem to be the only ones that make any sense to me. I've tried to find holes in their argument, and I can't.


I don't disagree with everything this guy is saying, but I don't understand how someone can claim that systemic racism doesn't exit. Stats on police shootings is not an argument against systemic racism. If he thinks that it doesn't exist, then I see why he thinks that race is not an important issue. It's a good way to shut down the conversation. He said no one can ever give him examples of systemic racism? He should follow a social worker around for a few days.

He dismisses the concept of micro-aggression without talking about why. I would be interested to hear his view. There are several studies on this topic and it's an interesting one. I have read them and talked about them with social workers when I was in school and with colleagues who work in the foster care system. Once I understood what it was about it became glaringly obvious how common it is.

He blames the Democrats and Hollywood, etc. for convincing black people that race is still an issue, but isn't that pretty condescending? I think black people know more about their experiences than he gives them credit for. The point at the end of "indoctrination" is an interesting one, but again I defer to people who have personal experiences. If they relate to the so-called narrative of victimization that he talks about, to the point of protesting in the hundreds, then isn't there something there worth talking about?
 
I'm not sure I understand your point here. So the American Communism Party supports BLM, but that doesn't mean that BLM is communist. The communist thing is coming off as alarmist to me. I understand the skepticism but it's not a clear connection to me.



I don't disagree with everything this guy is saying, but I don't understand how someone can claim that systemic racism doesn't exit. Stats on police shootings is not an argument against systemic racism. If he thinks that it doesn't exist, then I see why he thinks that race is not an important issue. It's a good way to shut down the conversation. He said no one can ever give him examples of systemic racism? He should follow a social worker around for a few days.

He dismisses the concept of micro-aggression without talking about why. I would be interested to hear his view. There are several studies on this topic and it's an interesting one. I have read them and talked about them with social workers when I was in school and with colleagues who work in the foster care system. Once I understood what it was about it became glaringly obvious how common it is.

He blames the Democrats and Hollywood, etc. for convincing black people that race is still an issue, but isn't that pretty condescending? I think black people know more about their experiences than he gives them credit for. The point at the end of "indoctrination" is an interesting one, but again I defer to people who have personal experiences. If they relate to the so-called narrative of victimization that he talks about, to the point of protesting in the hundreds, then isn't there something there worth talking about?

Socialism is only an euphemism for communism. The main difference between the two is that communism is achieved by a violent overtake of the country through arms (Cuba) while socialism is achieved through democracy (Venezuela). In communism measures are imposed over the people by the dictator. In socialism the same measures are achieved progressively through reforms of the system. Socialists always abuse the system to achieve them, of course, and the late stages of socialism involve the dismantlement of the very system that allowed them to exist so that they can remain forever in power, but I digress. The fact is the endgame for communism and socialism is exactly the same.

So this is why it is so important within socialism to change the culture. Because in order for this progression towards communism to happen voluntarily people need to be brainwashed into it from within. Hence the take over the media, universities, and other cultural institutions. This is what the word "progressive" means: to progress towards communism which is always the final goal even when socialists dont realize this is what they are working towards. Most leftists are nothing but useful idiots for communism. And communism is pretty good at using people's better intentions to strangle them.

I am only telling you this because according to one of your previous posts you consider yourself to be an anti-capitalist. Which means a communist. But you dont like the word communist because it has a bad reputation. You would rather consider yourself (and groups such as BLM) "socialist" because it sounds better, it offends no-one. You will always deny the communist connection because it gives the causes you fight for a bad name. But a socialist is a communist whether he knows it or not. And socialism was engineered and developed by communists. Every socialist is ultimately the product of a communist that was there before him.

This was the whole point of Critical Theory which is the basis of all these "racial relations" theories and "systemic oppression" ideas and "the patriarchy" imaginary monster. To fundamentally change people's perception of their reality to be able to manipulate them into voting for communism willingly instead of having to strong-arm them. Convincing them is much slower, but safer. Doing it by violent take-over is much more costly, ineffective, and dangerous.
 
  • Wat?!
Reactions: Booty_4U
Oh no not the commies!

Edit. Hahahaha I'll take the poop.
 
Sorry for the double post, just felt like I should maybe add examples because even though it is quite evident to me, people who are less familiar with this will think this is the product of some sort of conspiranoia trip (like I was accused in this thread before lol)

So, a quick example of how much money communists spend on expanding their territory and influencing other countries would be the Podemos party in Spain. These guys called themselves socialists, according to their campaign they were fighting against the corruption of the 2 party system. They were running to defeat the "casta" which was the allegiance between the rotten political parties and the rich class. They were fighting against injustice, for basic human rights. They were trying to stop banks from evicting good people. They were inclusive: feminists, green, and pro-immigration. They wanted to reform the constitution because it was written centuries ago and didn't represent the will of the spanish people of today. They denied being communists on TV, of course, and elsewhere. They said they were past the right-left dichotomy, they were for the People. Their logo was not the hammer and sickle. Their color wasn't red. This was their flag:

unnamed.png

podemos-puño.jpg

Just normal people right? Right...

To a Venezuelan like me it was obvious these guys were communists and bad news. If you understand communist symbology the first red flag on the pictures above was the raised fist. This is a communist symbol. Every group who does this salute is communist, just as every group who raises the open palm is fascist. And yet people keep believing in the fantasy that the Black Panthers wasn't a communist group, for example, even though their symbol is a raised fist. You might call this just a coincidence but trust me, it isn't. Sooner or later the communist connection is found. The raised fist is easy to see because it is a visual symbol, but other things give them away too. The desire to reform the constitution even when it has been working pretty well for the past 200 years with excuses that "we didn't write it so it isn't good anymore". They kept calling the constitution "wet paper". And this is the thing, in order to progress towards communism laws need to be changed, reform needs to be done, the constitution needs to be invalidated in order to put things in motion. When I hear people talking about things like this with no real cause I know what I am in the presence of.

I hope I dont have to explain how the Black Panthers were communists, but here is what they found about our friends the Podemos party in Spain a couple of years ago:

The 3 top leaders of the party received over 7 million euros from the Venezuelan government and continued to receive funds throughout their campaign. How did they manage to do this if getting funds from foreign countries is against the law? They created a foundation called CEPS which supposedly gave the chavista government in Venezuela counseling. So they received payment for those services in a foundation that supposedly has nothing to do with the party even when it is the exact same people. They also received money from Iran for a TV show they had on a local TV station called Fort Apache.

This was a huge problem of course because you see, Podemos based their entire campaign on the fact that they were just normal people like you and me. They told all their supporters to fund them using paypal through a crowd funding campaign on their own website. They said they werent receiving funds from anywhere else, it was the spanish people who put them there and gave them the money for their rallies etc. Well turns out even the paypal payments were fake. They used the crowd funding mechanism to launder money they received from Venezuela by making the micro payments themselves.

So even when they denied being communists, denied having any connection to Venezuela other than the counseling they did at one point, even when they said their project had nothing to do with the left-right dichotomy, when they said they were working for the People, to bring justice, they were all communists. And they wanted to impose communism in Spain through the socialist method. They didn't fool me, mind you, I was the first journalist to start exposing these things about them in Spain, they didnt fool me because I know from the very start that I had heard those words somewhere else before, from Chavez, who also swore on every TV station he had no ties to Cuba and he wasn't a communist.

Now that Podemos lost the elections, they have less of a problem showing us where their hearts lie, but even before losing there was already all this information about CEPS and even this video going around:



So how, you might ask yourself, can a country be so stupid to continue to support a guy who blatantly lies to them, who is an obvious communist, who received 7 million euros from Venezuela, who sings the International hymn holding the communist flag? How can people still support him and claim he isn't a communist?

It is very easy to dupe people who want to be duped. Even when others would show their supporters videos like this I posted above, or give them all the evidence that they wanted to impose a regime like Venezuela's or Cuba's in Spain, they would insist he wasn't a communist. Their argument was: "we can't be worse than we are right now" or "we need to take a risk! these parties are so corrupt, what do you expect us to do, keep voting for them?" They didn't take the threat seriously. Why? I don't know, ask Jolene why she thinks communism is something to laugh about.

Groups like BLM do exactly the same thing, and it wouldnt surprise me to know they are receiving funding from communist organizations or countries as well, just like the Black Panthers did back in their day.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ClaraBlack
Oh no not the commies!

Edit. Hahahaha I'll take the poop.

This is the exact same response every socialist gives when they are confronted with facts. This is why communism keeps winning and destroying entire countries when they do. Because stupid people keep thinking it will never happen to them, that communism is something to laugh about. It is very easy to dupe someone who wants to be duped.
 
Last edited:
  • Wat?!
Reactions: disciple_of_lucifer
I really think your post simplifies the issues far to easily. To have such a bi-chromatic outlook on the relevant issues of the times limits one's ability to contemplate a reasonable resolution to the issues. This is exactly why our political process is in such a state of shambles, there is no exclusive right and wrong. That is exactly why our very fabric of society is endangered.

Certainly you are not relating that issues of racism have disappeared and this movement is about a revolution? I see on a daily basis the racist history of the past injected in multiple levels of severity. The reality is that at whatever level it is still a reality.I consistently hear about "Blacks on Welfare" yet the reality is that an overwhelming percentage of Whites reside in this category.

I agree that the Parties in Power strive to divide and conquer in an effort to progress their agendas, however this is a far cry from either end of the political spectrum becoming a reality. It does a huge disservice to society for this discourse to continue, it puts at risk the very fabric of society. If we can't find a way to rise above it, it may well be the end of our ability to exist as a nation of many. We are a nation founded in the need to protect the inalienable rights of all men. This would be profoundly sad, IMHO.
 
This dawned on me the other day while digging myself into my favorite rabbit hole of ancient social studies and religion....

If we are all blaming each other maybe it's time to accept that we are all wrong?
 
I am only telling you this because according to one of your previous posts you consider yourself to be an anti-capitalist. Which means a communist. But you dont like the word communist because it has a bad reputation. You would rather consider yourself (and groups such as BLM) "socialist" because it sounds better, it offends no-one.

I just want to clarify that I did not call myself anti-capitalist, actually, but yes I do have problems with how it functions. You are putting words in my mouth. I feel attacked and I don't why!

Mila you bring up really interesting ideas, and then you dominate the conversation. And you are also pretty mean about it. You are so unpleasant to interact with it makes me want to leave the conversation. I see at least one other person has decided they don't feel welcome in this conversation. It's a shame because it's an important one.
 
I just want to clarify that I did not call myself anti-capitalist, actually, but yes I do have problems with how it functions. You are putting words in my mouth. I feel attacked and I don't why!

Mila you bring up really interesting ideas, and then you dominate the conversation. And you are also pretty mean about it. You are so unpleasant to interact with it makes me want to leave the conversation. I see at least one other person has decided they don't feel welcome in this conversation. It's a shame because it's an important one.

Sorry if I made you feel attacked, it wasn't my intention. I was simply surprised that you would have such a strong anti-capitalist sentiment. But I guess you have never lived in a non-capitalist society so you have nothing to compare your reality to. Whatever the reason you felt attacked by my post I really didnt mean it and I am sorry I offended you.

I am also sorry for dominating the conversation, I am a little bit anxious today because I am moving out of my apartment and back to Europe and I have nothing to do until I have to leave for the airport in 3 hours. So maybe I should do something else to kill time other than browse ACF or risk making double posts on every thread :(

The fact that other people feel uncomfortable by me expressing my opinion is not something I will apologize for. If you feel like you would rather leave the thread instead of reading or simply skipping my opinions please do it, I don't think ACF is a socialist safe-space. You also have the option of putting me on ignore, I did with LioraVox because she attacked me relentlessly and have been much happier since. I recommend the ignore function to anyone who has a problem with another ACF member. Makes your experience much smoother. On the fact of being unpleasant, I like to think I am an acquired taste.
 
Last edited:
Attacking someone for no reason vs attacking someone who has made strong generalizations based on deep-rooted racial stereotypes against your race & has dismissed or attempted to disprove your (and others) personal experiences. Huge difference in my book.

tumblr_n980pal3Zz1r9c36po1_500.gif


ETA: (cause I know you'll read this) At least when I have a problem with you - I let you know, instead of going to vent else where or asking for you to be removed from the forum. So toughen up and take what you dish out.
 
Last edited:
Sorry if I made you feel attacked, it wasn't my intention. I was simply surprised that you would have such a strong anti-capitalist sentiment. But I guess you have never lived in a non-capitalist society so you have nothing to compare your reality to. Whatever the reason you felt attacked by my post I really didnt mean it and I am sorry I offended you.

I am also sorry for dominating the conversation, I am a little bit anxious today because I am moving out of my apartment and back to Europe and I have nothing to do until I have to leave for the airport in 3 hours. So maybe I should do something else to kill time other than browse ACF or risk making double posts on every thread :(

The fact that other people feel uncomfortable by me expressing my opinion is not something I will apologize for. If you feel like you would rather leave the thread instead of reading or simply skipping my opinions please do it, I don't think ACF is a socialist safe-space. You also have the option of putting me on ignore, I did with LioraVox because she attacked me relentlessly and have been much happier since. I recommend the ignore function to anyone who has a problem with another ACF member. Makes your experience much smoother. On the fact of being unpleasant, I like to think I am an acquired taste.

I appreciate your apology Mila, this is a very helpful explanation.

Although I think you might be missing the point. I do not expect you to apologize for your opinion or for expressing it, but the way you talk to people on here comes across as pretty mean sometimes and it just shuts down the discussion. I might put you on ignore, but it's kind of a sad thing to have to do.
 
I am not denying that there is such a think as racism or discrimination. I am saying that connecting this to slavery or believing in the idea of “white privilege” is false. I don't believe anyone in America is automatically born with more privilege than someone else because of their skin color.

Welfare effects whites more than blacks because there are more white Americans than black Americans, but a disproportionate amount of black Americans receive it with respect to their population than white americans.

When someone talks about discrimination because of a last name for example, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but someone please tell me, what is a “white name.” I would call that Americanization of a name. Members of my family did it to avoid discrimination when coming here during the world wars... many Russian and Eastern Europeans still do this today.. etc etc.

Economists over and over determine that the breakdown in the American family structure is the biggest determination of privilege. When you compare black Americans born into families with two college educated parents, you will see their access to opportunity is the same as a white American born into a family with two college educated parents. There is a big problem of democratic policies hurting the education system in black communities. It is why men like Thomas Sowell point to the fact that his education in NYC in the 1930s and 1940s in the public school system was stronger than many black Americans face today. How can that be if everything has to do with racism and slavery? Since it was worse back then.

The manipulation of language to shut down conversations is a science and tactic connected to communism.

If disparities between whites and blacks in America only had to do with skin color/slavery, it doesn't explain why Asian Americans are on pace to be the wealthiest American demographic. It doesn't explain why Asian Americans are less likely to be turned down for loans than white Americans, less likely to get punished in school etc etc etc.

This suggests that much of the issues are cultural. There's a wealth of information on the topic, I'm not talking out of my ass. And it's not to say that anything racist has never happened to anyone here. The instances of racial discrimination I can recall of whites being less tolerant of blacks, if I'm honest, was by whites not born in America, and seems to be more culturally related. While racism exists, it's not directly tied to slavery in America. And while disparities exist between different groups they are not directly tied to racism.

Thomas Sowell who says he himself that he used to be a Marxist, has a career full of information to back up this theory if you'd like to look more into it. He is good at recognizing the tactics, because he used to support them. He's better able to disprove them than I am.

This new phenomenon, where a white male born into poverty to a single mother is told he has "white privilege" because of American slavery is ridiculous, if not cruel. If he was compared to a black american in a wealthier community to two parents, the difference in opportunities available would be clear. The problem with these arguments is that people are comparing things that have nothing to do with each other and applying them to the whole group. It's avoiding looking at ways to actually improve access to opportunities at a more equal level.

But If everything is because of slavery, these issues become impossible to solve. It's an intentional political tactic, used not just by communists.

I don't have the communist knowledge of @supermila. I do have a background in persuasion through language, in politics business etc.
I've lived in and out of predominantly black communities most of my life. Anything I've tried to add to this conversation, respectfully, is not because I live in a sheltered bubble or enjoy the occasional conspiracy theory.
 
Sorry if I made you feel attacked, it wasn't my intention. I was simply surprised that you would have such a strong anti-capitalist sentiment. But I guess you have never lived in a non-capitalist society so you have nothing to compare your reality to. Whatever the reason you felt attacked by my post I really didnt mean it and I am sorry I offended you.

I am also sorry for dominating the conversation, I am a little bit anxious today because I am moving out of my apartment and back to Europe and I have nothing to do until I have to leave for the airport in 3 hours. So maybe I should do something else to kill time other than browse ACF or risk making double posts on every thread :(

The fact that other people feel uncomfortable by me expressing my opinion is not something I will apologize for. If you feel like you would rather leave the thread instead of reading or simply skipping my opinions please do it, I don't think ACF is a socialist safe-space. You also have the option of putting me on ignore, I did with LioraVox because she attacked me relentlessly and have been much happier since. I recommend the ignore function to anyone who has a problem with another ACF member. Makes your experience much smoother. On the fact of being unpleasant, I like to think I am an acquired taste.

I think the "attacked" word is a little strong, yet your passion for your opinion was obvious. I have a different opinion, but that should not come as any surprise! Keep posting the world needs a difference to make a difference!
 
:think:

Because it would be impossible for us all to be right! Got it and agreed.
Completely, yes. The whole reason behind the idea of "checks and balances"...
were all right and wrong, and should be able to work together to balance out each others bullshit.
 
Completely, yes. The whole reason behind the idea of "checks and balances"...
were all right and wrong, and should be able to work together to balance out each others bullshit.

And the divisive language tactics and political tactics that are used, whether intentional or not, are what make this impossible.

When you have Hillary Clinton (who I'm 99% convinced hates black people but that's my personal opinion) coming out and saying "white people need to do a better job" after the police were killed, I have such anger I can't even explain. She is not saying that because she believes it, she's saying it for votes. We all have come to the agreement in this thread(I think? anyways?) that, that is not the only issue at play.

When democrats refuse to acknowledge the educational problems in inner cities that their problems have caused, refuse to acknowledge their own roles in hurting the black communities, and say "racism."....

They are not being honest, they are not trying to help anyone solve anything, they are trying to get somebody to vote for them out of emotion without examining their policies.

This is similar to what I see happening with these protests and I'm sorry for going on and on about it at length, but nobody else ever seems to be able to bring these parts up. I'll post some boobies or something somewhere to make up for it
 
I am not denying that there is such a think as racism or discrimination. I am saying that connecting this to slavery or believing in the idea of “white privilege” is false. I don't believe anyone in America is automatically born with more privilege than someone else because of their skin color.

Welfare effects whites more than blacks because there are more white Americans than black Americans, but a disproportionate amount of black Americans receive it with respect to their population than white americans.

When someone talks about discrimination because of a last name for example, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but someone please tell me, what is a “white name.” I would call that Americanization of a name. Members of my family did it to avoid discrimination when coming here during the world wars... many Russian and Eastern Europeans still do this today.. etc etc.

Economists over and over determine that the breakdown in the American family structure is the biggest determination of privilege. When you compare black Americans born into families with two college educated parents, you will see their access to opportunity is the same as a white American born into a family with two college educated parents. There is a big problem of democratic policies hurting the education system in black communities. It is why men like Thomas Sowell point to the fact that his education in NYC in the 1930s and 1940s in the public school system was stronger than many black Americans face today. How can that be if everything has to do with racism and slavery? Since it was worse back then.

The manipulation of language to shut down conversations is a science and tactic connected to communism.

If disparities between whites and blacks in America only had to do with skin color/slavery, it doesn't explain why Asian Americans are on pace to be the wealthiest American demographic. It doesn't explain why Asian Americans are less likely to be turned down for loans than white Americans, less likely to get punished in school etc etc etc.

This suggests that much of the issues are cultural. There's a wealth of information on the topic, I'm not talking out of my ass. And it's not to say that anything racist has never happened to anyone here. The instances of racial discrimination I can recall of whites being less tolerant of blacks, if I'm honest, was by whites not born in America, and seems to be more culturally related. While racism exists, it's not directly tied to slavery in America. And while disparities exist between different groups they are not directly tied to racism.

Thomas Sowell who says he himself that he used to be a Marxist, has a career full of information to back up this theory if you'd like to look more into it. He is good at recognizing the tactics, because he used to support them. He's better able to disprove them than I am.

This new phenomenon, where a white male born into poverty to a single mother is told he has "white privilege" because of American slavery is ridiculous, if not cruel. If he was compared to a black american in a wealthier community to two parents, the difference in opportunities available would be clear. The problem with these arguments is that people are comparing things that have nothing to do with each other and applying them to the whole group. It's avoiding looking at ways to actually improve access to opportunities at a more equal level.

But If everything is because of slavery, these issues become impossible to solve. It's an intentional political tactic, used not just by communists.

I don't have the communist knowledge of @supermila. I do have a background in persuasion through language, in politics business etc.
I've lived in and out of predominantly black communities most of my life. Anything I've tried to add to this conversation, respectfully, is not because I live in a sheltered bubble or enjoy the occasional conspiracy theory.

I totally get the difference when people say that systemic racism doesn't exist, does not mean that they think no racism exists. But I do think it exists and I do think white privilege exists. I think there are nuances that are easy to overlook, and easy to turn it into an argument about yes or no, this exists or doesn't exist. I always felt that that's what intersectionality is about. It is a way to look at things so that you are not saying, "but I have it worse because of this or that". So while I do think white privilege exists, I don't think it exist in a vacuum. Of course there are some black people whose lives are better than some white people. But those white people will still never be discriminated against for being black. Just as wealthy people will never be discriminated against for being poor no matter what their race is - they my still be discriminated against for their race though. I don' t know if this is the best example. I'm just trying to explain how I think this could be said for all kinds of discrimination, which as I understand it, is the point of intersectionality.

As for slavery, I dunno. I think it's pretty important to take in the history and context of things and consider whether they are affecting the present. I think in most cases the answer is yes. I don't think that means "everything is because of slavery", because again, nuances. I'm not interested in political tactics, I think it really matters.

For example, you said. "If disparities between whites and blacks in America only had to do with skin color/slavery, it doesn't explain why Asian Americans are on pace to be the wealthiest American demographic. It doesn't explain why Asian Americans are less likely to be turned down for loans than white Americans, less likely to get punished in school etc etc etc."

The disparities between whites and black in America do not only have to do with colour but they also have to do with slavery. These are two different things. Your argument kind of explains my point and shows how things are not so simple. If Asian Americans are of a different skin colour and there are less disparities between them and white people, then maybe it is less about discrimination over skin colour only. Maybe it is about racial stereotypes that are attached to those skin colours. And where did those stereotypes come from? For black people they started in slavery.

I also just want to add in response to your last post, which was added after I already starting typing (sorry, trying not to be long-winded, don't know if I'm succeeding). It seems like the Democrats and Republicans do not seem to be helping anyone figure anything out. They are both turning it into an us vs them thing and it's so useless. It's a good question about whether or not the BLM protests are furthering the divisiveness or not. I think activists within the movement are asking themselves this. But it might also depend on if you are actively involved and if not, what kind of media you're watching it through.


Ps. if I am using divisive language tactics, I would be interested to know when and where.
 
Last edited:
Your argument kind of explains my point and shows how things are not so simple. If Asian Americans are of a different skin colour and there are less disparities between them and white people, then maybe it is less about discrimination over skin colour only. Maybe it is about racial stereotypes that are attached to those skin colours. And where did those stereotypes come from? For black people they started in slavery.

We're getting somewhere, and I partially agree but this is more cultural, as I mentioned. Some could say Asian Americans are more likely to do well because of their family values and the importance on education moreso than in others. It's not necessarily a stereotype to say this, if you assume all of them are like that and treat them that way because of it, than you are being discriminatory, but that is not why they are less likely to be denied the loan. That kind of focus on education is just more common within their group.

Does that make more sense? They are less likely to be denied because they are getting better jobs that pay more, not because the bank teller thought they were smarter or more successful,or judged them by their name. You don't even need to interact with another human being to get a loan anymore. I think this kind of discrimination, person to person, is more the exception than the rule, and not responsible for enough decisions to make it part of "the system."

I don't know I'm not convinced systemic racism is a thing in America, there are laws to fight and sue over racial discrimination. Cops do go to jail when their proven to be in the wrong. If these things never happened I'd be more easily convinced.

Since discrimination in this country happens across cultures and against whites by other racial groups, I have to believe it's more cultural and individual than systemic. Personally I never even called it that. When black families with more money than me treated me like the help when I was growing up, I just thought they were snobs. I didn't call it racism.

Regarding the never ending topic I'll say this...and try to shut up about it. I feel like I'm borderline annoying at this point just for posting so much. But I stand by what I've said.

The second I see members of the Black Lives Matter movement publicly encouraging young blacks to be police officers to do good in their community rather than ostracized...
If I see black lives matter publicly addressing the dangers and confusion involved in resisting arrest...
If I see them come out and say sometimes the cops are wrong and sometimes the cops are right. Or say anything like the comments in @ACFFAN69 's video, about crying at both funerals...
I will jump up and down, get out allll the glitter and alllll the markers and make the prettiest protest poster this world has ever seen.

Unfortunately, I do not see anything leading to this anytime soon. And with all the parallels and connections to political agendas becoming more and more apparent, it's even upsetting. I don't think anyone's life should ever be exploited in such way.
 
  • Helpful!
Reactions: ramblin
I totally get the difference when people say that systemic racism doesn't exist, does not mean that they think no racism exists. But I do think it exists and I do think white privilege exists. I think there are nuances that are easy to overlook, and easy to turn it into an argument about yes or no, this exists or doesn't exist. I always felt that that's what intersectionality is about. It is a way to look at things so that you are not saying, "but I have it worse because of this or that". So while I do think white privilege exists, I don't think it exist in a vacuum. Of course there are some black people whose lives are better than some white people. But those white people will still never be discriminated against for being black. Just as wealthy people will never be discriminated against for being poor no matter what their race is - they my still be discriminated against for their race though. I don' t know if this is the best example. I'm just trying to explain how I think this could be said for all kinds of discrimination, which as I understand it, is the point of intersectionality.

As for slavery, I dunno. I think it's pretty important to take in the history and context of things and consider whether they are affecting the present. I think in most cases the answer is yes. I don't think that means "everything is because of slavery", because again, nuances. I'm not interested in political tactics, I think it really matters.

For example, you said. "If disparities between whites and blacks in America only had to do with skin color/slavery, it doesn't explain why Asian Americans are on pace to be the wealthiest American demographic. It doesn't explain why Asian Americans are less likely to be turned down for loans than white Americans, less likely to get punished in school etc etc etc."

The disparities between whites and black in America do not only have to do with colour but they also have to do with slavery. These are two different things. Your argument kind of explains my point and shows how things are not so simple. If Asian Americans are of a different skin colour and there are less disparities between them and white people, then maybe it is less about discrimination over skin colour only. Maybe it is about racial stereotypes that are attached to those skin colours. And where did those stereotypes come from? For black people they started in slavery.

I also just want to add in response to your last post, which was added after I already starting typing (sorry, trying not to be long-winded, don't know if I'm succeeding). It seems like the Democrats and Republicans do not seem to be helping anyone figure anything out. They are both turning it into an us vs them thing and it's so useless. It's a good question about whether or not the BLM protests are furthering the divisiveness or not. I think activists within the movement are asking themselves this. But it might also depend on if you are actively involved and if not, what kind of media you're watching it through.


Ps. if I am using divisive language tactics, I would be interested to know when and where.


I agree with you many levels. I also believe we have racism within our society on an individual level as well as systemic. What strikes me is how so many tend to try and frame the subject from the outsiders perspective, what is much more relevant for much of this is how the "victim" perceives the issue. It is from this perspective that we must make progress. While it is true that opportunities exist for black people in much more abundance than before, many are left behind, and yes it is to some degree social-economic. Those conditions do not lend easily to resolution by laws or even by economic programs. In the professional world race is well protected, in the lower end of the economic job, not really, but that is more likely to be experienced by all races. So the problem is extremely complex. I believe that everyone that works should be able to earn a living wage that will support an individual much less a family. The beauty of this approach is it tends to unite all people as opposed to any one segment. Coupled with a guarantee of basic life needs, such as healthcare and affordable child care, the lower working economic class can rise to a point where success is available. Unfortunately people see these as give aways when in reality I see them as basic rights within a society with a vast economic schism. Pay disparity and wealth disparity are a function of Republican economics. We no longer live in an economy that can boom continuously for extended times, the world is much more complex and the needs of societies in many lands are just as important. So until we can deal with this economic disparity the social disparities will continue to victimize a large segment of the population.

Some point to many valid issues, but one must appreciate that sometimes cause and effect are a matter of perspective. As such they become a reality of their own, and I for one will appreciate the power of the forgotten in their struggle to change the system. It is clearly what the Founders intended, it is clearly what they were talking about in the Declaration of Independence, and subsequently argued through the First Congress. It is the principle upon which our government was established, it is a good thing and it has been a long struggle that needs to continue.
 
Wanted to come back to this thread to see what's... Communism..? Okay well anyway I'm just hoping people aren't still against the movement for the wrong...

DK2wPlx.png

Oh. Well I'll just be leaving. For now, I guess.

Why exactly does my avatar bother you?
 
  • Wat?!
Reactions: Booty_4U
I.e., it doesn't seem t be race-based?
Actually I was suggesting that it isn't necessarily raced based, but that certain races may find themselves more easily assessed/ targeted by hot spot policing. Actually certain sexes and age distributions will too simply by their behaviour and when they are out.
Police bias is also enforced when they know the crime stats point to a geological area/ place, and they get the same type of people in that place. For most average people correlation is seen as cause.
 

I feel like she made that her avatar to prove some sort of point (that there are some Black folks out there who support Donald Trump). Lol. And Trump always makes sure someone is nearby to snap a photo of him standing next to a grinning Black person, so he can say things like "See? I have no problem with the Blacks!" Lmao...
 
Last edited:
If we are all blaming each other maybe it's time to accept that we are all wrong?

Jolene-- I'm not disagreeing with you below...I just want to expand a bit on your statement.

If we're all blaming each other, then we're all wrong in the sense that it's a sign that we are not really listening to each other and and trying to know the other person as an individual and understand their POV. If we can do that, we can still disagree, but without the rancor, hatred, attributions of bad faith and other psychological projections that tend to be directed to "the other side" as a group.

Most everyone knows this already; it's just very hard to put into practice (especially among members of an Internet discussion forum), and it's extremely easy to be swept up into the next conflict that arises. Participation in this thread has forced me to focus my thinking so that (I think) I'm getting better at recognizing when this is happening to me. I want to avoid or at least minimize it, not only because it is morally wrong and just plain counterproductive, but also because it is tiring, draining and makes me feel bad about myself and "the other side."
 
I feel like she made that her avatar to prove some sort of point (that there are some Black folks out there who support Donald Trump). Lol. And Trump always makes sure someone is nearby to snap a photo of him standing next to a grinning Black person, so he can say things like "See? I have no problem with the Blacks!" Lmao...

The man on my avatar is Malik Obama, President Barack Obama's brother. One week after Obama stated his support for Hillary, his brother declared his support for Donald Trump explaining that Hillary is a crook and Trump speaks from the heart. He did some PR moves too, giving interviews about it to American media. A part of me wants to believe that he is being a proxy for President Barack Obama's true feelings on the matter since the fact that he pretty much hates Hillary's guts is well known. He cant speak against her himself because of his party, but his brother can. I found it funny and a smart move so I made it my avatar.

But all you see in my avatar is a black man. And then you call ME a racist.
 
Malik endorsing whoever is not endorsed by Obama is not a big surprise... I'm not sure why anyone is surprised or even excited really. He didn't endorse Obama either, they have blood been it's estranged and very salty for a long time and that isn't really new news.
 
I don't see how Shelly's point is somehow negated by the fact it's Malk Obama? It's a token black person that supports Trump. The point remains.

It is negated because the fact that he is black didn't factor in on the decision of me using him as an avatar. He could be whiter than a nun's buttcheek and I would use him the same because what matters is who he is (Incument democrat president's brother) and who he is supporting (the opposite party). The fact that he is black has absolutely nothing to do with it. And when you see me use a black person as an avatar and the only explanation you can come up with is that I am using him because of the color of his skin, you are denying him his identity. The person who is being a racist is you for thinking the only motive one can choose a black person as an avatar is because he is black. It is pretty funny actually how the snake eats it's tail when it comes to racism. The fact that @Songbird_Shelly and the other dude are so hypersensitive about their race makes them interpret anything having to do with blacks as an act of racism. I wonder with how many things they do the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.