-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
The Librarian
Banned
I don't see anything wrong with what he said there.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I understand his point, but at the same time...Detroit probably deserved a riot in 1967. Although my mom, who saw the tanks riding past her windows as a kid at the time, refuses to call it a riot; she and some other people refer to it as "The Great Disturbance." Today though? I wouldn't support riots.
It was an interesting part of the speech. Personally I would have preferred if he called out those whose focus on racial issues is almost exclusively tied to white-on-black discrimination or violence. We need to focus on our own community and address our own problems. Black-on-black violence is a far bigger issue, as is poverty and bad schools. Yet many "black leaders" are nowhere to be found on these issues.
It was an interesting part of the speech. Personally I would have preferred if he called out those whose focus on racial issues is almost exclusively tied to white-on-black discrimination or violence. We need to focus on our own community and address our own problems. Black-on-black violence is a far bigger issue, as is poverty and bad schools. Yet many "black leaders" are nowhere to be found on these issues.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
I just heard a story on NPR last week about a company that is automating articles about financial outcasts and such. They read one of the articles and it sounded pretty natural.
empty vessel
Member
Just looks like victim blaming and false equivalencies to me.
That's fine, but it's not hard to see why the author would characterize that as "chastising" . Obama zeroes in on the black communities behavior at the time with that paragraph and preaches responsibility, mentions scummy politicians, globalization and so on as reason for rampant inequality -- and then proclaims "that history is why progress stalled".
Why this bothers the author is explored in the article.
That was my point! I think you misinterpreted who I was referring to when I said "I can see where he's coming from".
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
He is neither making them equivilent nor blaming them for the situation overall.
The Librarian
Banned
I think it is. It's a stretch to call that chastising.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
This is the worst thing Obama will do as President. Libya made sense. This one doesn't at all.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/us-syrian-chemical-attack-killed-1-429-including
The intelligence assessment. Basically that the satellites and timing of everything makes it almost impossible not to be Assad who launched the weapons. And that they stopped on the 21st.
We'll see what we do, but I'm expecting air strikes next week.
The intelligence assessment. Basically that the satellites and timing of everything makes it almost impossible not to be Assad who launched the weapons. And that they stopped on the 21st.
We'll see what we do, but I'm expecting air strikes next week.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Gubmint jobs!
Walker is the worst example of the GOP getting the benefit of the doubt when they don't deserve it. Has no record to speak of other than being a right-wing dick but his approvals are still decent because he'll occasionally talk about reaching out to the other side.
I think he's beatable but only with a good candidate and the Democrats are coming up short on that one.
But you do agree he's laying some of the blame on their feet there, right? It bothers me that white people's attitudes on the other hand, seem to not have "stalled" anything going by the lack of a mention.
I know Fox would eviscerate him if he did, and he's damn scared of bad press from the right on any level, but I think that's an argument for him not wagging his finger at the black community at all. It only feeds the right-wing narrative about welfare queens when he doesn't address structural racism and white privilege.
This is better how?
empty vessel
Member
I did misinterpret you.
Stump (I think) made a great post a month or two ago in some thread about context and how it matters. President Obama is not a black leader talking to black people. He is the president giving a public speech to the entire country. Making these points about black people in this context can only validate racists and racist policy, in my opinion. It's even more unfortunate that he said these things on a day honoring the civil rights movement.
Read the lines again, and imagine them coming from George W. Bush.
Wait, was she the gay daughter or is that her sister?
That's her sister.
Why exactly would Obama not let Congress vote on this first? It's the right thing to do and the smart thing politically
Depends on when they want to get back into town for a session. I'd prefer he do that too, but getting their butts into seats is probably going to take a while.
Also, I would actually argue it would be the smart thing politically to actually do it before Congress, if only to help the Dems not get on record and even give them something to run against. But I honestly don't care about the politics of war.
I figured as much, no one is THAT crazy.
Family gatherings must be AMAZING at the Cheney house.
Log Cabin Republicans say "Hi".
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
The way you phrase that first sentence works against any kind of nuanced response. He's pointing out that some will opt to use oppression as an excuse to roll over, give up, etc. He's working against that urge.
At this point of the conversation, as he's talking about individual responsibility, any talk of sides at all is beside the point. That's reductionist and not at all what's being said.
But they didn't come from GWB. They come from somebody obviously sympathetic to the causes in question.
To both of you-- if you can't raise a valid point without "validating racists" then you cannot communicate in a responsible way. Obama has repeatedly bucked the trend on this and it's for the better overall for politial discourse.
Isn't being pro-marriage equality a plank of the official Log Cabin Republican organization's position?
The GOP is for the opposite of anything that happens (If there's no strike, Obama lets a brutal dictator off the hook!) but they WILL use this as an election issue if Obama does not have them on record with a vote.
I don't see any urgency or upside to bypass Congress in this case. In fact, getting them to block any strike is the best of a lot of bad options IMO
Yeah. You're pretty crazy to think that Republicans are going to embrace gay marriage anytime soon. It just screams "They hate us, but we'll still vote for them!"
It's a little Stockholm Syndrome-ish.
platypotamus
Member
Simple:
Gunshots sounds are racist against black people, but EXPLOSION sounds are only racist against Muslims. Duh, stupid democrats, don't even know what is racist against who that's why they think everything is racist all the time!
empty vessel
Member
I'm less interested in raising political discourse than I am in preventing giving racists political ammunition. He could have said nothing and the speech would have been fine. Keep in mind, it's not just that I disagree with it as a political tactic. I also think it's fundamentally wrong to blame black people for the institutional racism perpetrated against them, which is what he did, in my opinion. It's not just words about needing to unify and organize politically to fight institutional racism, he specifically laid blame at their feet. Black people "lost their way" by engaging in "self-defeating riots" and using police brutality as a pretext to commit crimes. He further says that black people use poverty as an "excuse" for not raising their children, effectively denying that poverty can have real world ramifications on one's capacity to raise children well.
This is pretty terrible stuff to say about victims of institutional racism. It's bootstrap nonsense. It's even worse that the only reason I can think of it being in his speech is to appease racists.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
The fundemental difference here-- and I think it's unresolvable-- is that I do not think he blamed them for the institutional racism, but rather warned of the dangers of becoming helpless in the face of it. You call it "bootstrap nonsense" but it is, in fact, the best advice when put into a bad situation. The people who spout boostraps *and* work to undermine the safety net aor further worsen the system are one thing, those who advocate personal responsibility at the same time as working to change the system are another entirely.
Re: Your last sentence-- if you think that's why it's there, then it calls into question you ability to parse any political speech. Seriously.
Re: Your last sentence-- if you think that's why it's there, then it calls into question you ability to parse any political speech. Seriously.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Members of Congress are busy fundraising. It'd be nigh impossible to get all of them back.
This is exactly why many members of Congress are publicly saying that he needs their approval - there is no risk in saying it because Congress is obviously not going to be called back into session and they get to flex their anti-Obama or anti-war muscles.
empty vessel
Member
This is the part of the speech where Obama proved (mostly to conservative white racists who dominate the political world) that he was "serious" and not just another race-baiting Al Sharpton.
Here's one internet comment to it from just such a conservative racist:
"Black people need to take personal responsibility, 100% of it, for what happens in the black community.
I salute the president for saying it and I wish he would say it more."
I'm sure he does. It makes him feel warm and fuzzy to have his racist assumptions validated by the most powerful black man in the history of the world.
It's not just Obama, the personal responsibility speech is almost invariably directed towards black people, whether it's given by Bill Cosby or Bill O'Reilly. I don't see an awful lot of tut-tutting from the People of Note towards the white community to take responsibility for themselves, say no to meth, and stop complaining about illegal immigrants taking their jobs. But every so often we have to have someone remind black people that they need to straighten up their act.
Here we have a group of people who are economically marginalized, systematically discriminated against, disproportionately arrested and imprisoned, but they need to meet us halfway and stop with all the poverty fueled dysfunction and violence. It's partly their fault after all!
It's patronizing, insulting, and it is absolutely blaming the victim.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
That wasn't blaming blacks or minorities at all. He was saying in the face of racism you need to do things on your own sometimes. He never said that's the only thing to do but since change is slow do something in the mean time . When faced with challenges you don't do nothing and say you can't do anything till someone else changes.
And the speech and that portion was well received by those there.
in other news NC is going to force you to frack your land.
I'm not anti-fracking as I think it's better than coal but it's insane you can't say no. I get eminent domain but is forcing people to sell their land to private companies constitutional?
And the speech and that portion was well received by those there.
in other news NC is going to force you to frack your land.
I'm not anti-fracking as I think it's better than coal but it's insane you can't say no. I get eminent domain but is forcing people to sell their land to private companies constitutional?
empty vessel
Member
That's just a complete mischaracterization of what he said. I mean, if English doesn't mean anything anymore, then we all might as well stop posting here. He indisputably blamed black people. Just read the words.
Here's another piece about it: http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/08/obama_vs_history.html
http://joshuafoust.com/extraordinary-court-statement/
Has this been posted yet?
According to this, Greenwald's partner, was carrying 58000 highly classified UK intel documents. They also seized a piece of paper that contained the password for the encrypted files.
Files contained personal information that would allow British intelligence staffed to be identified. British gov't now assumes Snowden data is in the hands of foreign government (HK and Russia).
Has this been posted yet?
According to this, Greenwald's partner, was carrying 58000 highly classified UK intel documents. They also seized a piece of paper that contained the password for the encrypted files.
Files contained personal information that would allow British intelligence staffed to be identified. British gov't now assumes Snowden data is in the hands of foreign government (HK and Russia).
cooljeanius
Member
UK PoliGaf has gotten fun lately with the Syria stuff: http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=78889905#post78889905
Well, now his detention makes a fuckton more sense.
Yea, anyone would have detained him under those circumstances.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Oh look, additional information has come to light that makes one of these stories seem like somewhat less of a horrific Orwellian breach of freedom.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I like Ta Nehisi, but with some black people you can't ever ask or want black people to do better and take some responsibility. Nope it's all the white man's fault. There is not in between or shared responsibility. Ta's the same type of person that ignores the changes to drug charges that hurt blacks more than whites.
Black Mamba
Member
I'm not arguing against any basic income. Again, this is a straw man built up.
I understand you were clear, but I found the comparison offensive because I'm not arguing against a basic income in the least, only the method to provide it.
All I've argued is that there is a point at which a direct transfer is so high that people will opt not to work "ugly" jobs. I've never claimed what that point is. Are you denying such a point exists?
Perhaps it was my understanding of the term "underclass" that is the point of confusion here. The working poor today having to work multiple jobs at long hours to scrape by is how I view the "underclass." A person having a 35 hour work week (like everyone else) doing an "ugly" job and having enough to live decently enough I wouldn't consider "underclass." You seem to be defining anyone who does an "ugly" job as underclass here and I think that's wrong. That sort of argument assumes a lack of societal value which i oppose.
Black Mamba
Member
It's called humanity, not philosophy. It will always be there.
Which is why I am, for the 100th time, not against a basic income. Only saying that it matters how we provide it. I don't believe those at the bottom should struggle. I believe everyone who works hard deserves a decent lifestyle and that we should subsequently take care of the elderly and disabled and help out people in times of need.
I agree with you 100%. But until you demonstrate a model that makes these jobs lucrative, it doesn't mean much in the real world. If i were up to me, taking care of the elderly would be valued higher than a Wall Street trader. But it's not up to me.
Again I agree. I've only argued that
A. a direct transfer should be just ONE method of accomplishing our goals
B. That too high a transfer, without stating what that number is, could be detrimental.
I've also argued for massive institutional structure changes - that people should work much less hours, paid time off without repercussions, etc.
This is starting to get annoying. I feel like no one is actually reading my position. Like, how many times do I have to repeat that I'm not against a basic income, not against a direct transfer, and agree that both of those are too fucking low right now without being hounded on the topic? It's perplexing to say the least.
My belief is that if you try hard and are a good person, you shouldn't have to worry about money in terms of living a decent life in this country. We are failing miserably at this goal.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
To be honest, he's assigning marginal responsibility to minorities. It's just that you have to omit to preceeding and following paragraphs and assume intent to make it into "victim blaming" rather than a call to common purpose and shared commitment to change.
It's a very binary read on the topic and why I find the criticisms off-base. Right before those statements he lays the problem at the feet of entrenched interests. He's basically saying "let's not undermine ourselves."
empty vessel
Member
I don't see how, honestly. Do you think it would be fine for US police to detain journalists and confiscate their belongings based on a presumption that they possess classified information?
He's doing more than that, because there are unsubstantiated assertions of fact involved and which, in my opinion, are not remotely true. Where is the evidence that black criminal behavior is caused in fact by conscious decisions to use police brutality as a pretext for them? Where is the evidence poverty is not in fact the cause of black parents not raising their children? Where is the evidence that black people use poverty as an excuse for not raising their children? I've never heard a black person blame poverty. In fact, most poor black people I have encountered (and I have encountered many in my line of work) consider themselves to have had "normal" upbringings, and don't consider themselves poor at all (despite the fact that they most definitely are). Since when have organized black people framed their political demands as "a mere desire for government support." Never, to my knowledge. These are classic Southern white racist assertions that don't have any basis in reality. Obama here is endorsing their truth, and then chastising black people for it.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
It depends, for me, on weather they just detained him on the off chance that he had something (which would be bad) or if they had a reasonable reason to believe he had such documents in his possession (which would be...understandable)
Regardless though, the fact that these details are just coming to light now and that they do contradict some of the earlier information just, for me, lends further strength to my increasing feeling of frustration at how much a lot of people seem interested in taking stories like this at face value. Everyone has an agenda.
His detention would have been illegal in the US and for good reason. They would have to formally arrest him on the basis of probable cause and allow him access to a lawyer. I don't even think he has been arrested or charged with anything yet. The Terrorism Act is a travesty and I don't see how this information makes the detention any more justifiable.
The Guardian released a clarification early on that Miranda was working on the Snowden files and it was discussed in the original thread about this incident. This hardly changes much about the story. Miranda shouldn't have been detained without arrest either way.
Well he's not a journalist first off, his partner is.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Why do you and other people keep lying about this?
Poverty Tour
Jesse Jackson marching demanding Obama help stop Chicago gun violence this year
Rapper T.I., Ja Rule, and Al Sharpton march in Harlem to stop gun violence
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...rch-harlem-stop-gun-violence-article-1.412485
So again STOP saying this! You sound like Bill O'Reilly and we know his objective.
So as long as they aren't directly employed by a news organization you would be fine with this type of detention?
- Status