RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:
I'm saying that, considering what is coming to light with people trying to frame the black protestors, talking about the violence in the same breath as police brutality is wrong.

It is not part of the same discussion. They have no other choice. They are being marginalised like hell, beaten and sprayed with chemical weapons...

Of course they're going to be angry And rightly so.

There should be no room for discussion on minor details here, that's what the racists want you to do. If you focus on the minutiae, you can so easily forget about the big picture. If you are whipped into a frenzy of "these people shouldn't be destroying property", you're going to forget the point.

That's what Fox want you to do. That's what Trump, Pence, the white landowners in the US want you to do. To concentrate on the little details so you forget this is all because an entire group of people are being marginalised and treated like slaves.

It needs to stop.

Those undertaking the violence and the looting, and that's probably the extreme right as well as the extreme left and those against racial prejudice, do have other choices if the aim is to lesson the unfair treatment in society. And violence and looting and not minor details, though there is room to stress more the sheer numbers who are peacefully protesting and not engaging in social disorder.

As Obama noted in the speech or essay that Morepork linked the voter turnout at local level is really low. If groups seeking change want actual change then registering voters and casting their votes is a significant way to start making some real change. Given the apathy around voting in local and state elections they could probably start to achieve results well beyond their actual numbers.

I don't know as an aside if anyone caught the comments from the Houston Police Chief, but I thought he spoke rather well when asked about some of Trump's comments:

Houston police chief Acevedo was asked to respond to the leaked call, by CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, who put the question to Acevedo whether it was the right environment for “police today to go out and dominate”.


Acevedo told CNN, “Let me just say this to the President of the United States on behalf of the police chief's in this country, please, if you don't have something constructive to say, keep your mouth shut because you're putting men and women in their early 20s at risk.”

“This is not about dominating. It's about winning hearts and minds. And let's be clear. We do not want people to confuse kindness with weakness.”

He spoke about the need for leadership, criticising Trump’s message of dominance instead calling for communities to “stand together”.

“We don't want ignorance to ruin what we've got here in Houston and speaking for my colleagues across the country where their officers are being injured, community members are being injured,” he said.

“It’s time to be presidential and not try to be like you're on The Apprentice. This is not Hollywood. This is real life, and real lives are at risk.”

Acevedo says it’s time to “shift this [action] to where it needs to be -- the voting booth.” He cites the reason for the protests was because too many people who are “damaging property never bothered to vote.”

In the 2016 US Presidential election, the black voter turnout fell for the first time in 20 years to 59.6 per cent -- despite recording an all time high of 66.6 per cent in the previous presidential election in 2012.

However, prior to the election 14 states implemented new voting restrictions which included; restricting voter registration, strict voter ID requirements and limiting early voting.

Federal judges found Republicans in the state of North Carolina suppressed black voter turnout with “surgical precision”.

“Let's engage and let's do what we can control which is our own actions, our own hearts and exercise without fail our right to vote”

Avecodo has called on protesters, “You have a choice, lift up your voice, be heard in the voting booth and continue to march peacefully. So the focus remains on bad policing, criminal policing.”

He says the inequality in America is “not just about policing, it’s about society.” He references education, health, access to food -- and “everything that we as human beings, hold near and dear.”

“So please, please don't, don't react to [Trump].

Instead Avecodo says: “The only thing that will happen to overcome hate is love, and love and engagement. Let's engage and let's do what we can control, which is our own actions, our own hearts and exercise without failing our right to vote.”

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
I'm saying that, considering what is coming to light with people trying to frame the black protestors, talking about the violence in the same breath as police brutality is wrong.

It is not part of the same discussion. They have no other choice. They are being marginalised like hell, beaten and sprayed with chemical weapons...

Of course they're going to be angry And rightly so.

There should be no room for discussion on minor details here, that's what the racists want you to do. If you focus on the minutiae, you can so easily forget about the big picture. If you are whipped into a frenzy of "these people shouldn't be destroying property", you're going to forget the point.

That's what Fox want you to do. That's what Trump, Pence, the white landowners in the US want you to do. To concentrate on the little details so you forget this is all because an entire group of people are being marginalised and treated like slaves.

It needs to stop.

Those undertaking the violence and the looting, and that's probably the extreme right as well as the extreme left and those against racial prejudice, do have other choices if the aim is to lesson the unfair treatment in society. And violence and looting and not minor details, though there is room to stress more the sheer numbers who are peacefully protesting and not engaging in social disorder.

As Obama noted in the speech or essay that Morepork linked the voter turnout at local level is really low. If groups seeking change want actual change then registering voters and casting their votes is a significant way to start making some real change. Given the apathy around voting in local and state elections they could probably start to achieve results well beyond their actual numbers.

I don't know as an aside if anyone caught the comments from the Houston Police Chief, but I thought he spoke rather well when asked about some of Trump's comments:

Houston police chief Acevedo was asked to respond to the leaked call, by CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, who put the question to Acevedo whether it was the right environment for “police today to go out and dominate”.


Acevedo told CNN, “Let me just say this to the President of the United States on behalf of the police chief's in this country, please, if you don't have something constructive to say, keep your mouth shut because you're putting men and women in their early 20s at risk.”

“This is not about dominating. It's about winning hearts and minds. And let's be clear. We do not want people to confuse kindness with weakness.”

He spoke about the need for leadership, criticising Trump’s message of dominance instead calling for communities to “stand together”.

“We don't want ignorance to ruin what we've got here in Houston and speaking for my colleagues across the country where their officers are being injured, community members are being injured,” he said.

“It’s time to be presidential and not try to be like you're on The Apprentice. This is not Hollywood. This is real life, and real lives are at risk.”

Acevedo says it’s time to “shift this [action] to where it needs to be -- the voting booth.” He cites the reason for the protests was because too many people who are “damaging property never bothered to vote.”

In the 2016 US Presidential election, the black voter turnout fell for the first time in 20 years to 59.6 per cent -- despite recording an all time high of 66.6 per cent in the previous presidential election in 2012.

However, prior to the election 14 states implemented new voting restrictions which included; restricting voter registration, strict voter ID requirements and limiting early voting.

Federal judges found Republicans in the state of North Carolina suppressed black voter turnout with “surgical precision”.

“Let's engage and let's do what we can control which is our own actions, our own hearts and exercise without fail our right to vote”

Avecodo has called on protesters, “You have a choice, lift up your voice, be heard in the voting booth and continue to march peacefully. So the focus remains on bad policing, criminal policing.”

He says the inequality in America is “not just about policing, it’s about society.” He references education, health, access to food -- and “everything that we as human beings, hold near and dear.”

“So please, please don't, don't react to [Trump].

Instead Avecodo says: “The only thing that will happen to overcome hate is love, and love and engagement. Let's engage and let's do what we can control, which is our own actions, our own hearts and exercise without failing our right to vote.”

They may not feel they have any other choice, considering the hurdles they'd need to jump to get a sympathetic candidate running, never mind getting them enough votes despite the barracking they'll inevitably take in local, unregulated press.

Look, I'm not really accusing anyone of racism here. Hence my chosen words - not you are racist, but your post is. But the truth is, when you're saying the same things Fox News are saying, and focusing on violence rather than the majority of protests that are not violent, you're playing right into the hands of the racists. Which, in the opinion of many, is just as bad.

It's enabling.

You're lucky to live in the UK, where the level of racism has decreased to underlying tutting and shadowed eyes (perhaps built into the two-faced nature of the British middle class - speaking as a former member myself).

Racism and sexism are linked. They're both perpetrated by a group who sees themselves as superior to the other, oppressed group, and feels threatened by them, so lashes out.

And when you see it every day, be it police violence against black men, domestic violence against women, institutionalised racism preventing gypsy children from getting a good education, and so on...

It becomes more of a problem in your mind.

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Enough of the racist allegations.

So here's the thing...

It really does depend on what you consider racism?

Is racism just the act of being overtly racist?

Or is enabling racists, not standing up and saying "this is wrong" also racist?

I tend to come down on the latter side. Which means, in my book, Digby's reaction was racist.

It's insanely important every single person stands up and condemns racism immediately and without couching it. By putting a "but" in there, you're giving systemic racism a chance to spread, to evolve and to get worse.

And it is getting worse.

Racism, sexism, homophobia...

We're meant to be living in an age that is more accepting of other people, it's global. But outside a few pockets, people are routinely treated incredibly different because of their race, religion, sexual preference, or even their fucking sex!

It's insane, it's wrong, and if you find any way to couch your condemnation, you are part of the problem.

Do not label fellow posters as racist. It’s that simple. If you feel someone is being racist make a complaint.

A black friend of mine has shared this in response to all the comments of "At least we're not in America." Britain's nowhere near as bad as the US, but we're hardly in a position where we can feel comfortable about our institutional racism.
Puja

Stom wrote:
It's enabling.

You're lucky to live in the UK, where the level of racism has decreased to underlying tutting and shadowed eyes (perhaps built into the two-faced nature of the British middle class - speaking as a former member myself).

Racism and sexism are linked. They're both perpetrated by a group who sees themselves as superior to the other, oppressed group, and feels threatened by them, so lashes out.

And when you see it every day, be it police violence against black men, domestic violence against women, institutionalised racism preventing gypsy children from getting a good education, and so on...

It becomes more of a problem in your mind.

I will happily agree living in the UK is a fortunate position looking around the globe. We're going to go down different paths of thinking on whether the more combative response is justified and whether it's more helpful than a a more strategised non violent approach, and we'll also think differently around how enabling certain responses are

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Enough of the racist allegations.

So here's the thing...

It really does depend on what you consider racism?

Is racism just the act of being overtly racist?

Or is enabling racists, not standing up and saying "this is wrong" also racist?

I tend to come down on the latter side. Which means, in my book, Digby's reaction was racist.

It's insanely important every single person stands up and condemns racism immediately and without couching it. By putting a "but" in there, you're giving systemic racism a chance to spread, to evolve and to get worse.

And it is getting worse.

Racism, sexism, homophobia...

We're meant to be living in an age that is more accepting of other people, it's global. But outside a few pockets, people are routinely treated incredibly different because of their race, religion, sexual preference, or even their fucking sex!

It's insane, it's wrong, and if you find any way to couch your condemnation, you are part of the problem.

Do not label fellow posters as racist. It’s that simple. If you feel someone is being racist make a complaint.

Hence labelling the post as such, not the poster. And I think it's a discussion worth having. Though I wouldn't go out and simply call someone a racist without asking for them to be banned. Which I have done. And he was banned.

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
It's enabling.

You're lucky to live in the UK, where the level of racism has decreased to underlying tutting and shadowed eyes (perhaps built into the two-faced nature of the British middle class - speaking as a former member myself).

Racism and sexism are linked. They're both perpetrated by a group who sees themselves as superior to the other, oppressed group, and feels threatened by them, so lashes out.

And when you see it every day, be it police violence against black men, domestic violence against women, institutionalised racism preventing gypsy children from getting a good education, and so on...

It becomes more of a problem in your mind.

I will happily agree living in the UK is a fortunate position looking around the globe. We're going to go down different paths of thinking on whether the more combative response is justified and whether it's more helpful than a a more strategised non violent approach, and we'll also think differently around how enabling certain responses are

It's not about more combative responses, but about making certain parts of the narrative more prominent.

By spreading a "violence is wrong, whoever does it" narrative, it detracts from the point in much the same way Trump's "there's good people on both sides" did.

It's irrelevant. It serves one purpose: distraction. It's not about being nuanced. You and I can be nuanced. But Joe average is not going to see things like that. They're going to read the headlines about looting and take a dim view of the black protestors. Even if the looting is actually being done by white police officers trying to make the protestors look bad.

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:
So here's the thing...

It really does depend on what you consider racism?

Is racism just the act of being overtly racist?

Or is enabling racists, not standing up and saying "this is wrong" also racist?

I tend to come down on the latter side. Which means, in my book, Digby's reaction was racist.

It's insanely important every single person stands up and condemns racism immediately and without couching it. By putting a "but" in there, you're giving systemic racism a chance to spread, to evolve and to get worse.

And it is getting worse.

Racism, sexism, homophobia...

We're meant to be living in an age that is more accepting of other people, it's global. But outside a few pockets, people are routinely treated incredibly different because of their race, religion, sexual preference, or even their fucking sex!

It's insane, it's wrong, and if you find any way to couch your condemnation, you are part of the problem.

Do not label fellow posters as racist. It’s that simple. If you feel someone is being racist make a complaint.

Hence labelling the post as such, not the poster. And I think it's a discussion worth having. Though I wouldn't go out and simply call someone a racist without asking for them to be banned. Which I have done. And he was banned.

I’ll refer you to the board rules. Insulting other posters, which can include calling them racist, isn’t permitted. I don’t accept your argument that suggests that unless you wholeheartedly agree with the current protests, including the violence, then you are condoning racism. That is nonsense.

The publicity around the autopsy isn't exactly deafening. The official autopsy noted the homicide was caused by "a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s)." whereas the independent report requested by the family shifted the narrative a little in concluding Floyd's death was a "homicide caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain".

If the official report does stand I don't know how much harder that will make trying to pursue a murder charge against the police officer, the family are already cross it's Murder 3 not Murder 1, and if it drops to manslaughter you'd have to assume that will go over very badly as things stand, not with the family and certainly not with a lot of people willing to go out and protest the police actions. (Just to be clear I'm not saying the charge should drop, only I don't understand how the law works, though the accused deserves to be treated equally before the law no matter the irony)

It's a scary moment, and this could easily get much worse.

Stom wrote:
It's not about more combative responses, but about making certain parts of the narrative more prominent.

By spreading a "violence is wrong, whoever does it" narrative, it detracts from the point in much the same way Trump's "there's good people on both sides" did.

It's irrelevant. It serves one purpose: distraction. It's not about being nuanced. You and I can be nuanced. But Joe average is not going to see things like that. They're going to read the headlines about looting and take a dim view of the black protestors. Even if the looting is actually being done by white police officers trying to make the protestors look bad.

I did note somewhere above 'there is room to stress more the sheer numbers who are peacefully protesting and not engaging in social disorder.'

But this story isn't getting reported without covering the violence. It's one of the reasons I'd prefer there was no violence, so that the story can't be so easily deflected

Digby wrote:The publicity around the autopsy isn't exactly deafening. The official autopsy noted the homicide was caused by "a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s)." whereas the independent report requested by the family shifted the narrative a little in concluding Floyd's death was a "homicide caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain".

If the official report does stand I don't know how much harder that will make trying to pursue a murder charge against the police officer, the family are already cross it's Murder 3 not Murder 1, and if it drops to manslaughter you'd have to assume that will go over very badly as things stand, not with the family and certainly not with a lot of people willing to go out and protest the police actions. (Just to be clear I'm not saying the charge should drop, only I don't understand how the law works, though the accused deserves to be treated equally before the law no matter the irony)

It's a scary moment, and this could easily get much worse.

It’s possible to kill someone with a pair of handcuffs. Positional asphyxiation is something you get taught very early on in defensive tactics training. I’m not aware of the knee in the back is a legitimate restraint technique or not, it’s not something I’m aware of in use in the UK.

The key point for me is that the victim becomes unresponsive and is the held in a restraint for a further 3 minutes or so. I’d question why he was in a restraint position with handcuffs applied, normally they are used to get the victim compliant so you can apply handcuffs, but again guidelines can vary. But when you arrest someone you are responsible for their safety. If I had handcuffed someone and became aware that they had become unresponsive then I am duty bound to check on their condition and provide medical assistance if necessary. From the video it appears like the police officer didn’t do that and instead maintained the restraint. That for me is the key element in proving that it wasn’t just an accident and the officer had some malicious intent there.

As an aside, I was surprised that all 4 were sacked. Surely suspended pending an independent investigation is the way to go with these things?

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:The publicity around the autopsy isn't exactly deafening. The official autopsy noted the homicide was caused by "a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s)." whereas the independent report requested by the family shifted the narrative a little in concluding Floyd's death was a "homicide caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain".

If the official report does stand I don't know how much harder that will make trying to pursue a murder charge against the police officer, the family are already cross it's Murder 3 not Murder 1, and if it drops to manslaughter you'd have to assume that will go over very badly as things stand, not with the family and certainly not with a lot of people willing to go out and protest the police actions. (Just to be clear I'm not saying the charge should drop, only I don't understand how the law works, though the accused deserves to be treated equally before the law no matter the irony)

It's a scary moment, and this could easily get much worse.

It’s possible to kill someone with a pair of handcuffs. Positional asphyxiation is something you get taught very early on in defensive tactics training. I’m not aware of the knee in the back is a legitimate restraint technique or not, it’s not something I’m aware of in use in the UK.

The key point for me is that the victim becomes unresponsive and is the held in a restraint for a further 3 minutes or so. I’d question why he was in a restraint position with handcuffs applied, normally they are used to get the victim compliant so you can apply handcuffs, but again guidelines can vary. But when you arrest someone you are responsible for their safety. If I had handcuffed someone and became aware that they had become unresponsive then I am duty bound to check on their condition and provide medical assistance if necessary. From the video it appears like the police officer didn’t do that and instead maintained the restraint. That for me is the key element in proving that it wasn’t just an accident and the officer had some malicious intent there.

As an aside, I was surprised that all 4 were sacked. Surely suspended pending an independent investigation is the way to go with these things?

I do start with some sympathy in that police must so often face people being extremely unhelpful whilst being arrested, facing physical and verbal abuse themselves, and it's all too easily a moment big on adrenaline. But he's fucked this up and then some, acceptable isn't even a dot on the horizon. There must be serious charges, but still if those charges drop the stories around the official autopsy and any lessening of charges could easily pour fuel on the fire. And that before even one small act is even considered on addressing the myriad of underlying problems

This is a festering wound that is being made worse by the inability of those in charge to acknowledge the root causes of all of this. Thanks to President photo op and his right wing infotainment propaganda machine the narrative is slowly shifting towards protests being labeled as outright riots. I can tell that here on the ground in Philly, the cops may be restrained in the affluent areas, but in North and West Philly, they are without a shadow of a doubt provoking protestors with violence. In West Philly yesterday there was an armoured personel/fucking tank thing firing tear gas canisters over buildings to land indiscriminately in residential neighbourhoods. Also yesterday, there was a kneel-in on one of the major throughfares for vehicular traffic going in and out of the city, before the curfew, non-violent, to which the police responded to by firing an absurd amount of tear gas and rushing the protestors into a high wall on the side of the freeway. They then started cracking heads and hauling as many as possible into armoured paddy wagons. The fucking cherry on the top is the mayors planned budget for the next fiscal year which cuts practically all funding for grassroots community arts and cultural programs (which are vital cogs in black community youth programs) and axes entirely funding for the African American Museum here (which is a must-see for anyone visiting Philly). Police also will get a 2.5% pay rise for which they did not have to negotiate. I'm sure you all witnessed the nonsense in DC last night, with an unannounced tear gas attack on protestors and the assault of journalists in order that the vile racist buffoon in charge could have a macho man reality TV photo op. The fucking cops are PUBLIC SERVANTS and should be protecting the first amendment rights of protestors, not assaulting them. I am beyond pissed off and this movement now has one more white boy that does not give a fuck how many windows are broken and shops looted if that is what it takes to compel State and Federal government to acknowledge that this is about decades of unfair distribution of public wealth and institutionalised violence and oppression against minorities. I'll happily torch a police cruiser for that. They must not be allowed to get away with this.

Why is burning a police car going to work out better than writing letters to representatives and working to engage those who're frustrated to do the same whilst aiming for much higher percentages of voter registration and actual voting?

Neither approach can be ignored, but one of the approaches places less risk on life and property and has a much clearer path to achieving much sought after change. Saying I'm happy to torch police property feels like Trump saying I want people to be safe from Covid so drink bleach to make yourself better, and what do you have to lose?

You are not seeing what I'm seeing. Sorry.

Digby wrote:Why is burning a police car going to work out better than writing letters to representatives and working to engage those who're frustrated to do the same whilst aiming for much higher percentages of voter registration and actual voting?

Neither approach can be ignored, but one of the approaches places less risk on life and property and has a much clearer path to achieving much sought after change.

While I can't speak for morepork (and don't endorse burning police cars), working within the system got them a black President and a black A-G, who did make some change. Then 2012 happened and the Republic senate made it their goal to block anything and everything. Then 2016 happened and within a year, everything had been reversed, in some cases further back than where it was before.

I am not surprised that a lot of people have looked at your two options and made a different conclusion to you as to which one is most likely to effect change.

Puja

In a big struggle, with a lot of people involved, it's quite likely that someone is going to overstep the mark. To get the big picture, you have to stand back and take a broad view. Yes, some property has been damaged, and that is wrong. But the "overstepping of the mark" from the other side is so extreme, blatant, endemic and chronic that there is no comparison. (And that's before you even consider the serious possibility of faked vandalism, by the police.)

In an ideal world, protests would all be peaceful. And when carefully planned (eg Extinction Rebellion) they can be peaceful, while being (fairly) effective, and all the more so for being peaceful. In the face of extreme repression (eg Nazi occupation, the Chinese reaction to Tiananmen Square), such protests are useless (and potentially fatal), protesters have insufficient (or no) protection via legal processes. From the perspective of non-whites, the USA falls somewhere between the UK and China in its level of repression. Whether that effectively justifies violent protest in the US is not clear. I still hope that well-organised groups can maintain discipline, remain non-violent AND be effective, but I don't think the answer is certain.

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Why is burning a police car going to work out better than writing letters to representatives and working to engage those who're frustrated to do the same whilst aiming for much higher percentages of voter registration and actual voting?

Neither approach can be ignored, but one of the approaches places less risk on life and property and has a much clearer path to achieving much sought after change.

While I can't speak for morepork (and don't endorse burning police cars), working within the system got them a black President and a black A-G, who did make some change. Then 2012 happened and the Republic senate made it their goal to block anything and everything. Then 2016 happened and within a year, everything had been reversed, in some cases further back than where it was before.

I am not surprised that a lot of people have looked at your two options and made a different conclusion to you as to which one is most likely to effect change.

Puja

I'm not surprised people are acting as they are, people are morons, mobs especially so. I'm worried that people will get hurt by the violence and I fear it'll not prove effective, and it allows for a different story to take the agenda. The only option is to go again and again and again in peaceful protest.

Though I do take note of the two responses from Trump, namely you can't impeach me because the whites will riot and to avoid that we must respect the people/rioters Vs if the blacks riot we must shut them down. It's not an easy situation to remain calm in.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Why is burning a police car going to work out better than writing letters to representatives and working to engage those who're frustrated to do the same whilst aiming for much higher percentages of voter registration and actual voting?

Neither approach can be ignored, but one of the approaches places less risk on life and property and has a much clearer path to achieving much sought after change.

While I can't speak for morepork (and don't endorse burning police cars), working within the system got them a black President and a black A-G, who did make some change. Then 2012 happened and the Republic senate made it their goal to block anything and everything. Then 2016 happened and within a year, everything had been reversed, in some cases further back than where it was before.

I am not surprised that a lot of people have looked at your two options and made a different conclusion to you as to which one is most likely to effect change.

Puja

I'm not surprised people are acting as they are, people are morons, mobs especially so. I'm worried that people will get hurt by the violence and I fear it'll not prove effective, and it allows for a different story to take the agenda. The only option is to go again and again and again in peaceful protest.

Though I do take note of the two responses from Trump, namely you can't impeach me because the whites will riot and to avoid that we must respect the people/rioters Vs if the blacks riot we must shut them down. It's not an easy situation to remain calm in.

The Civil Rights Act came out of the riots after the assassination of MLK. The powers Obama used to begin reform of police departments (which Trump reversed) came out of the 1992 LA Riots. Gay rights came out of Stonewall. The Gilets Jaune got what they wanted out of Macron (and then some). The Arab Spring achieved regime change (until the Americans decided the change wasn't to a regime they liked). These things historically have achieved results.

Mind, no-one historically has been up against such a reality-shielded person as Trump. Other leaders have eventually bowed to demands because it's reached a stage where it's more sensible to do that than keep on fighting. Trump doesn't appear aware that conceding is an option.

Puja

Trump couldn't tell the time on an analogue watch without a tutor. He isn't aware of anything. This reeks of that ghoul Stephen Miller, with Jawed offering sage management speak type advice to keep rich honkies from getting spooked.


Fear not Rebellers, I have not reached for mine long sword just yet.

The problem with violent demonstration is that it scares off moderate supporters and pushes the state towards a predictable outcome. Then there is only one way to go and it’s not pretty.

Anyone who suggests that non violent campaigns don’t work should refer to Gandhi and Mandela.

Whilst having Trump in office is a real problem, the key activity is local. Get organised and vote for candidates who represent your interests. Obama has put it more succinctly than I can and he is absolutely right. If you disengage from politics then you box yourself into a corner and only have one very bad option.

Sandydragon wrote:The problem with violent demonstration is that it scares off moderate supporters and pushes the state towards a predictable outcome. Then there is only one way to go and it’s not pretty.

Anyone who suggests that non violent campaigns don’t work should refer to Gandhi and Mandela.

Whilst having Trump in office is a real problem, the key activity is local. Get organised and vote for candidates who represent your interests. Obama has put it more succinctly than I can and he is absolutely right. If you disengage from politics then you box yourself into a corner and only have one very bad option.

Beautifully illustrated.

MLK wrote:I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

Winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 Martin Luther King Jr. noted the following, which I mention apropos of nothing, beautifully illustrated mind:

"I must ask why this prize is awarded to a movement which is beleaguered and committed to unrelenting struggle, and to a movement which has not yet won the very peace and brotherhood which is the essence of the Nobel Prize," King said. "After contemplation, I conclude that this award, which I receive on behalf of that movement, is a profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time: the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression."

Meanwhile, in "What the fucking hell America"



I've had this story from several unrelated people, including one I know and trust personally. What the actual fuck America.

Puja