This is a country whose mythology WORSHIPS the people who boarded a British ship, dumped it's entire contents into the sea, and then tarred and feathered a couple tax collectors to boot. Because "freedom". But these same people also have no problem launching indiscriminate clouds of chemical irritants into crowds of people when one of them throws a fucking water bottle in the general direction of a line of police dressed like they're in a dystopian action movie. Or, the case of Trump's walk to the church in DC, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, WELL in advance of the stipulated curfew. I've watched so many videos of unprovoked police violence and assault the last 2 or 3 months that if I downloaded all of them I'd have to buy a new SSD to have room to store them.
At least it's non-lethal. I guess a lot of people would rather they shoot into crowds or beat the shit out of them with batons. Maybe harsh language would work, but I doubt it...
People forget awful quickly that the now revered TOTALLY peaceful protests in Alabama in the 1960s WERE met with batons. And dogs. And firehoses. And that at the time, MLK wasn't viewed any more favorably than someone like Abbie Hoffman or Jerry Rubin. Same with Ali for sitting out the Vietnam War. Both men are viewed as heroes only in hindsight. At the time, they might as well have been on the FBI Most Wanted List.
I totally agree. Though I try to think that we have come a very long way from the brutal racism and outright thuggery of the 60's.
It just wasn't that long ago. It was all happening when my dad was in elementary school. There is a tendency to view it as ancient history.
That was literally two generations ago. Things are much different now than they were then. My daughter has no clue what all the fuss is about. I rather like that. Granted we live in a mostly white suburb, but she honestly can't fathom why anybody would care about somebody's race or sexual preference. That should be the goal in my opinion...
For many daughters in many neighborhoods, that's not the same reality. They mostly agree no one should care about anyone's race/sexual preference, but they see people treated differently precisely because of it.
Things were worse in the 1960s, but they arent perfect now.
Not worth burning down buildings and looting mostly black businesses though. There are better ways of achieving those goals in the modern era. Rioting and looting will get you four more years of Trump, not widescale change like you seem to think it will bring about.
The exact same arguments were used in the 1950s that Black people shouldnt make so much noise or agitate for social equality. They should just "wait their turn". People point to MLK, but the civil rights was much larger than just him, and not all of those protests were 100% peaceful.
FWIW - it was also (like now) mostly people who werent subject to racial discrimination at that time telling the oppressed exactly how they should conduct their protests, too.
Here's an example of how conservatives thought of the Civil Rights in the 1960s.
Sound familiar?
You know what though? This isn't the 1960's, but you sure as shit can turn it into the 1960's if you want to treat modern times like they're the same as they fucking were back then. People aren't the same now and the same actions will 'not' garner the same results. Mark my words...
Right, without Googling, can you tell me how many peaceful protests happened in the last 2 years? Can you name a single one of them? I bet you can't, and neither can most of the rest of the country. Riots don't come out of nowhere, and being murdered by the hundreds every years, while the murderers are PRAISED is gonna do it.
"I can't believe people are getting mad over being murdered. They won't get anywhere trying to fight back. Why don't do things civily and think the feelings of their murderers?"
Maybe you'd feel better if every black person in america laid down let themselves be murdered? Would that be more convienant?
Yeah that'd be great. That's totally where I'm coming from...
Btw: The reason why nobody hears about the peaceful protests is not because they're ineffective, it's because they're not sensational enough for what disguises itself in our country as news reporting...
I am going to assume that you did not read or watch her reasons for running. Been watching her for a while and she calls for less government and a halt to public programming through school and religion. Yes her being a satanist and a transgender woman would piss off some republicans even though she ran as a GOP candidate I believe. I personally think left media wont touch it because of the anarchy symbols she uses and yes, the call for disbanding the police. Personally I think she is trolling.
Not every fringe candidate is worth reporting on. How many votes do you actually think a person like this is going to receive?
It’ll only be news worthy if she wins the position, or comes very close to winning it.
I am going to assume that you did not read or watch her reasons for running. Been watching her for a while and she calls for less government and a halt to public programming through school and religion. Yes her being a satanist and a transgender woman would piss off some republicans even though she ran as a GOP candidate I believe. I personally think left media wont touch it because of the anarchy symbols she uses and yes, the call for disbanding the police. Personally I think she is trolling.
Not every fringe candidate is worth reporting on. How many votes do you actually think a person like this is going to receive?
It’ll only be news worthy if she wins the position, or comes very close to winning it.
And if she's "trolling" as he says, then it's actually responsible reporting to avoid giving a troll coverage.
"I'm a fresh-air breather" t-shirts. Fuck me. And notice how the mask-wearing has now been tied to the international pedophile ring. Apparently the only reason anyone is wearing one is to hide their true identity as a sex-slaver.
I'm not sure what is to be done when a significant portion of the population has willfully divorced themselves from reality and is now living on Pluto. I'm at a loss, I don't know how you combat it at this point. You can't do cult deprogramming on millions of people. Once someone is this far gone, there is no convincing to be done. Only an earth-shattering personal event can break the spell, if then.
I am going to assume that you did not read or watch her reasons for running. Been watching her for a while and she calls for less government and a halt to public programming through school and religion. Yes her being a satanist and a transgender woman would piss off some republicans even though she ran as a GOP candidate I believe. I personally think left media wont touch it because of the anarchy symbols she uses and yes, the call for disbanding the police. Personally I think she is trolling.
I did read her reasons for running. She's definitely trolling, yes. She's a bit of an oddball--she's called herself the S-word and apparently is a bit of an anarcho-capitalist, both of which are largely unpopular in the trans community.
I think the reason "left media" isn't jumping on the story because winning a local sheriff's primary election by default isn't really noteworthy; God knows how many sheriff primaries there are nationwide. It's very much local news.
I am going to assume that you did not read or watch her reasons for running. Been watching her for a while and she calls for less government and a halt to public programming through school and religion. Yes her being a satanist and a transgender woman would piss off some republicans even though she ran as a GOP candidate I believe. I personally think left media wont touch it because of the anarchy symbols she uses and yes, the call for disbanding the police. Personally I think she is trolling.
Not every fringe candidate is worth reporting on. How many votes do you actually think a person like this is going to receive?
It’ll only be news worthy if she wins the position, or comes very close to winning it.
She won the GOP's nomination for Sheriff in Cheshire County, a lot of votes I guess.
I am going to assume that you did not read or watch her reasons for running. Been watching her for a while and she calls for less government and a halt to public programming through school and religion. Yes her being a satanist and a transgender woman would piss off some republicans even though she ran as a GOP candidate I believe. I personally think left media wont touch it because of the anarchy symbols she uses and yes, the call for disbanding the police. Personally I think she is trolling.
I did read her reasons for running. She's definitely trolling, yes. She's a bit of an oddball--she's called herself the S-word and apparently is a bit of an anarcho-capitalist, both of which are largely unpopular in the trans community.
I think the reason "left media" isn't jumping on the story because winning a local sheriff's primary election by default isn't really noteworthy; God knows how many sheriff primaries there are nationwide. It's very much local news.
Why would she be unpopular in the trans community? If you could explain this I would love to understand it.
I am going to assume that you did not read or watch her reasons for running. Been watching her for a while and she calls for less government and a halt to public programming through school and religion. Yes her being a satanist and a transgender woman would piss off some republicans even though she ran as a GOP candidate I believe. I personally think left media wont touch it because of the anarchy symbols she uses and yes, the call for disbanding the police. Personally I think she is trolling.
Not every fringe candidate is worth reporting on. How many votes do you actually think a person like this is going to receive?
It’ll only be news worthy if she wins the position, or comes very close to winning it.
And if she's "trolling" as he says, then it's actually responsible reporting to avoid giving a troll coverage.
She is the first trans woman to win a GOP nomination in her county would that not make it news worthy though. Also how do you know Im a he dear. My name on this forum is Æmrys if that makes it easier for you.
I am going to assume that you did not read or watch her reasons for running. Been watching her for a while and she calls for less government and a halt to public programming through school and religion. Yes her being a satanist and a transgender woman would piss off some republicans even though she ran as a GOP candidate I believe. I personally think left media wont touch it because of the anarchy symbols she uses and yes, the call for disbanding the police. Personally I think she is trolling.
Not every fringe candidate is worth reporting on. How many votes do you actually think a person like this is going to receive?
It’ll only be news worthy if she wins the position, or comes very close to winning it.
And if she's "trolling" as he says, then it's actually responsible reporting to avoid giving a troll coverage.
She is the first trans woman to win a GOP nomination in her county would that not make it news worthy though. Also how do you know Im a he dear. My name on this forum is Æmrys if that makes it easier for you.
My mistake. But not a ridiculous assumption to make given the demographics here. Also, I seem to be mistaken that you're interested in sincere conversation. "Why isn't the national press covering a longshot county-level candidate" doesn't strike me as a question a sincere interlocutor would insist on repeating, after already getting several obvious answers.
I am going to assume that you did not read or watch her reasons for running. Been watching her for a while and she calls for less government and a halt to public programming through school and religion. Yes her being a satanist and a transgender woman would piss off some republicans even though she ran as a GOP candidate I believe. I personally think left media wont touch it because of the anarchy symbols she uses and yes, the call for disbanding the police. Personally I think she is trolling.
Not every fringe candidate is worth reporting on. How many votes do you actually think a person like this is going to receive?
It’ll only be news worthy if she wins the position, or comes very close to winning it.
She won the GOP's nomination for Sheriff in Cheshire County, a lot of votes I guess.
I am going to assume that you did not read or watch her reasons for running. Been watching her for a while and she calls for less government and a halt to public programming through school and religion. Yes her being a satanist and a transgender woman would piss off some republicans even though she ran as a GOP candidate I believe. I personally think left media wont touch it because of the anarchy symbols she uses and yes, the call for disbanding the police. Personally I think she is trolling.
Not every fringe candidate is worth reporting on. How many votes do you actually think a person like this is going to receive?
It’ll only be news worthy if she wins the position, or comes very close to winning it.
She won the GOP's nomination for Sheriff in Cheshire County, a lot of votes I guess.
She ran unopposed.
Yes she did but the votes came from somewhere I don't think all her votes came from people who consider themselves left. I believe she got over four thousand so that also has to be a lot of trolls in on it as well. I personally believe this is satirical in nature and from what limited understanding I have of satanists they try to flip the orthodox of politics and religion on their head to prove the hypocrisy in them. Again this is all from my limited understanding if someone can share from experience I would be grateful to learn more.
Please bear in mind that the thread rules forbid "ascribing absurd or sinister views to other forumites." While posting in bad faith is indeed against the rules, accusing another forumite of breaking a rule publicly is also not allowed--those claims can only be made privately, either via the anonymous "Flag" feature or by sending a message directly to a member of the moderating team.
I am going to assume that you did not read or watch her reasons for running. Been watching her for a while and she calls for less government and a halt to public programming through school and religion. Yes her being a satanist and a transgender woman would piss off some republicans even though she ran as a GOP candidate I believe. I personally think left media wont touch it because of the anarchy symbols she uses and yes, the call for disbanding the police. Personally I think she is trolling.
I did read her reasons for running. She's definitely trolling, yes. She's a bit of an oddball--she's called herself the S-word and apparently is a bit of an anarcho-capitalist, both of which are largely unpopular in the trans community.
I think the reason "left media" isn't jumping on the story because winning a local sheriff's primary election by default isn't really noteworthy; God knows how many sheriff primaries there are nationwide. It's very much local news.
Why would she be unpopular in the trans community? If you could explain this I would love to understand it.
She came up in a trans-related subreddit I frequent, where people made a few complaints. One of them was the fact that she described herself as (I hate to even type this, but) a "shemale" in a video, and that word has been used as a slur for decades. It's really frustrating to see trans people who aren't involved in the community using and normalizing slurs, because it gives cis people the impression that using them is okay. It's the same reason Blaire White, a popular trans woman conservative YouTuber, is also deeply unpopular in the trans community: White makes thousands of dollars telling conservatives that it's okay to mock trans people and denigrate nonbinary critters; stoking bigotry literally paid for her breasts. The fact that this woman uses the S-word for herself is a pretty solid clue that she has little contact or experience with the greater trans community (or just doesn't care about being a good trans representative in front of the cis folks).
But back to the sheriff candidate, another complaint was that she was, contrary to the Fox news headline, not an anarchist (a really niche identity in America) but an anarcho-capitalist, a more extreme form of libertarianism. Trans people consistently lean to the left, largely because the political right (especially the GOP leadership) generally doesn't like us, and capitalism isn't as popular among trans people because the trans population tends to be much poorer than the cis population. An anarcho-capitalist or libertarian would be more likely to agree that it should be legal for businesses to fire people for being trans, and most of us aren't chill with that.
I'm not sure a trans woman winning a nomination by default, without GOP voters even knowing who she is, is a big victory for trans rights. I see no reason to believe that those voters did know who she is unless either (1) she actually had a prior conservative following, which she doesn't, or (2) voters who saw her name and didn't recognize it on the ballot pulled out their phone to research if they wanted to vote for the only candidate there, which, no, people don't do.
How many GOP primary voters look up the names of each candidate on the primary ballot, even the ones running unopposed, AND would be okay with a transgender candidate, AND would be okay with an anti-police candidate for sheriff? I would genuinely be surprised if more than one person out of 4,000 GOP primary voters fit all of those criteria, and cast their vote for this woman knowing who she actually was.
I'm reasonably certain she won for the reasons she said she won: she submitted her name because there was no competition and she just waited for people to tick off the box blindly, as people do.
Satanists have tried to expose alleged religious hypocrisy by turning things on their head before, but I don't think this was specifically a Satanic thing, and it's worth pointing out that political stuff is just one small part of Satanism. A friend of mine is a member of the Satanic Temple and they're bigger on raising money for charity and conducting social events than staging publicity stunts or working politics.
Please bear in mind that the thread rules forbid "ascribing absurd or sinister views to other forumites." While posting in bad faith is indeed against the rules, accusing another forumite of breaking a rule publicly is also not allowed--those claims can only be made privately, either via the anonymous "Flag" feature or by sending a message directly to a member of the moderating team.
I am going to assume that you did not read or watch her reasons for running. Been watching her for a while and she calls for less government and a halt to public programming through school and religion. Yes her being a satanist and a transgender woman would piss off some republicans even though she ran as a GOP candidate I believe. I personally think left media wont touch it because of the anarchy symbols she uses and yes, the call for disbanding the police. Personally I think she is trolling.
I did read her reasons for running. She's definitely trolling, yes. She's a bit of an oddball--she's called herself the S-word and apparently is a bit of an anarcho-capitalist, both of which are largely unpopular in the trans community.
I think the reason "left media" isn't jumping on the story because winning a local sheriff's primary election by default isn't really noteworthy; God knows how many sheriff primaries there are nationwide. It's very much local news.
Why would she be unpopular in the trans community? If you could explain this I would love to understand it.
She came up in a trans-related subreddit I frequent, where people made a few complaints. One of them was the fact that she described herself as (I hate to even type this, but) a "shemale" in a video, and that word has been used as a slur for decades. It's really frustrating to see trans people who aren't involved in the community using and normalizing slurs, because it gives cis people the impression that using them is okay. It's the same reason Blaire White, a popular trans woman conservative YouTuber, is also deeply unpopular in the trans community: White makes thousands of dollars telling conservatives that it's okay to mock trans people and denigrate nonbinary critters; stoking bigotry literally paid for her breasts. The fact that this woman uses the S-word for herself is a pretty solid clue that she has little contact or experience with the greater trans community (or just doesn't care about being a good trans representative in front of the cis folks).
But back to the sheriff candidate, another complaint was that she was, contrary to the Fox news headline, not an anarchist (a really niche identity in America) but an anarcho-capitalist, a more extreme form of libertarianism. Trans people consistently lean to the left, largely because the political right (especially the GOP leadership) generally doesn't like us, and capitalism isn't as popular among trans people because the trans population tends to be much poorer than the cis population. An anarcho-capitalist or libertarian would be more likely to agree that it should be legal for businesses to fire people for being trans, and most of us aren't chill with that.
I'm not sure a trans woman winning a nomination by default, without GOP voters even knowing who she is, is a big victory for trans rights. I see no reason to believe that those voters did know who she is unless either (1) she actually had a prior conservative following, which she doesn't, or (2) voters who saw her name and didn't recognize it on the ballot pulled out their phone to research if they wanted to vote for the only candidate there, which, no, people don't do.
How many GOP primary voters look up the names of each candidate on the primary ballot, even the ones running unopposed, AND would be okay with a transgender candidate, AND would be okay with an anti-police candidate for sheriff? I would genuinely be surprised if more than one person out of 4,000 GOP primary voters fit all of those criteria, and cast their vote for this woman knowing who she actually was.
I'm reasonably certain she won for the reasons she said she won: she submitted her name because there was no competition and she just waited for people to tick off the box blindly, as people do.
Satanists have tried to expose alleged religious hypocrisy by turning things on their head before, but I don't think this was specifically a Satanic thing, and it's worth pointing out that political stuff is just one small part of Satanism. A friend of mine is a member of the Satanic Temple and they're bigger on raising money for charity and conducting social events than staging publicity stunts or working politics.
Thank you for your well written explanation and opinions. I don't know many satanists but I have heard many do a lot of charity work.
Pretty much what I thought, the left didn't touch her story because none of the boxes checked off and the right did because the boxes did. Looks like to me she accomplished what she set out to do. Also I didn't know there is such a divide in the Trans community in regards to right and left, thank you for the insight. I can check off one of my boxes too for today learn something new. Thanks again you didn't have to but you did and I appreciate that.
Not exactly what I was looking for but a very thought provoking look at charity/philanthropy...
I laugh snorted so loud when the page opened and I saw the title. Thanks for a good laugh. The piece was very thought provoking indeed.
Agreed. I've come across plenty of 'Big' references, like Big Oil or Big Pharma. I haven't though seen Big Philanthropy before - but perhaps I should have done ...
Climate change seems to be briefly back at the top of the news in the US thanks to Trump's visit to the wildfires in California - and his comment that: "It'll start getting cooler, you just watch". I wonder how many people will reflect on the similarity to his comments on coronavirus, such as “It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.” . He also suggested the US is unique in having such problems - totally ignoring the extremely high levels of fire over the last couple of years in Russia, Amazon and Australia among other places.
What concerns me is not just the short-term damage Trump is doing, but the long term impact on how people think. It seems obvious to me that he has no sense of personal responsibility for his actions and he seems to be having some success in spreading that attitude. In relation to climate change there are a couple of main reasons that people don't support action - they don't believe it's happening, or they accept it's happening, but don't think they can do anything about it. Trump encourages both of those and a lack of personal responsibility will tend to make his argument more appealing that it doesn't matter what the US does, if they can't control other countries like China, India and Russia.
Unfortunately it seems almost certain to me that climate change will continue to be a political football in the US for some time to come. If Trump wins that will just vindicate his view that he can bend reality. If Biden wins and (re)introduces carbon reduction policies those will have little or no effect on the worsening trend in the next few years - allowing Republicans to score easy points by saying the policies are useless. I'm not sure how bad things will have to get to make current climate skeptics think again, but my guess is pretty bad ...
This is a country whose mythology WORSHIPS the people who boarded a British ship, dumped it's entire contents into the sea, and then tarred and feathered a couple tax collectors to boot. Because "freedom". But these same people also have no problem launching indiscriminate clouds of chemical irritants into crowds of people when one of them throws a fucking water bottle in the general direction of a line of police dressed like they're in a dystopian action movie. Or, the case of Trump's walk to the church in DC, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, WELL in advance of the stipulated curfew. I've watched so many videos of unprovoked police violence and assault the last 2 or 3 months that if I downloaded all of them I'd have to buy a new SSD to have room to store them.
At least it's non-lethal. I guess a lot of people would rather they shoot into crowds or beat the shit out of them with batons. Maybe harsh language would work, but I doubt it...
People forget awful quickly that the now revered TOTALLY peaceful protests in Alabama in the 1960s WERE met with batons. And dogs. And firehoses. And that at the time, MLK wasn't viewed any more favorably than someone like Abbie Hoffman or Jerry Rubin. Same with Ali for sitting out the Vietnam War. Both men are viewed as heroes only in hindsight. At the time, they might as well have been on the FBI Most Wanted List.
I totally agree. Though I try to think that we have come a very long way from the brutal racism and outright thuggery of the 60's.
It just wasn't that long ago. It was all happening when my dad was in elementary school. There is a tendency to view it as ancient history.
That was literally two generations ago. Things are much different now than they were then. My daughter has no clue what all the fuss is about. I rather like that. Granted we live in a mostly white suburb, but she honestly can't fathom why anybody would care about somebody's race or sexual preference. That should be the goal in my opinion...
For many daughters in many neighborhoods, that's not the same reality. They mostly agree no one should care about anyone's race/sexual preference, but they see people treated differently precisely because of it.
Things were worse in the 1960s, but they arent perfect now.
Not worth burning down buildings and looting mostly black businesses though. There are better ways of achieving those goals in the modern era. Rioting and looting will get you four more years of Trump, not widescale change like you seem to think it will bring about.
The exact same arguments were used in the 1950s that Black people shouldnt make so much noise or agitate for social equality. They should just "wait their turn". People point to MLK, but the civil rights was much larger than just him, and not all of those protests were 100% peaceful.
FWIW - it was also (like now) mostly people who werent subject to racial discrimination at that time telling the oppressed exactly how they should conduct their protests, too.
Here's an example of how conservatives thought of the Civil Rights in the 1960s.
Sound familiar?
You know what though? This isn't the 1960's, but you sure as shit can turn it into the 1960's if you want to treat modern times like they're the same as they fucking were back then. People aren't the same now and the same actions will 'not' garner the same results. Mark my words...
Right, without Googling, can you tell me how many peaceful protests happened in the last 2 years? Can you name a single one of them? I bet you can't, and neither can most of the rest of the country. Riots don't come out of nowhere, and being murdered by the hundreds every years, while the murderers are PRAISED is gonna do it.
"I can't believe people are getting mad over being murdered. They won't get anywhere trying to fight back. Why don't do things civily and think the feelings of their murderers?"
Maybe you'd feel better if every black person in america laid down let themselves be murdered? Would that be more convienant?
Yeah that'd be great. That's totally where I'm coming from...
Btw: The reason why nobody hears about the peaceful protests is not because they're ineffective, it's because they're not sensational enough for what disguises itself in our country as news reporting...
Are there many cases of purely peaceful protests being successful? While I have to admit that I did not look very deeply into, it always seemed to me that the most successful movements always have a peaceful and a more violent arm - not dissimilar to the old good cop, bad cop routine.
You need the peaceful, calm people to demonstrate that you can talk with the movement, and unfortunately it seems like the more violent arm may be needed so that people see that it is also necessary to talk.
Would the 68 Civil Rights acts have passed without MLK? Certainly not. Would it have passed without the violent riots preceding and following his assassination? Probably not, or not as fast.
And while everyone knows Gandhi, would India be independent without the riots and rebellions?
I don't think this means physical violence is the answer. But I am not unconvinced that entirely passive protests are sufficient either - it seems that people need to be at least inconvenienced (blocking roads, economic impact, etc) to do something about those problems.
Climate change seems to be briefly back at the top of the news in the US thanks to Trump's visit to the wildfires in California - and his comment that: "It'll start getting cooler, you just watch". I wonder how many people will reflect on the similarity to his comments on coronavirus, such as “It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.” . He also suggested the US is unique in having such problems - totally ignoring the extremely high levels of fire over the last couple of years in Russia, Amazon and Australia among other places.
What concerns me is not just the short-term damage Trump is doing, but the long term impact on how people think. It seems obvious to me that he has no sense of personal responsibility for his actions and he seems to be having some success in spreading that attitude. In relation to climate change there are a couple of main reasons that people don't support action - they don't believe it's happening, or they accept it's happening, but don't think they can do anything about it. Trump encourages both of those and a lack of personal responsibility will tend to make his argument more appealing that it doesn't matter what the US does, if they can't control other countries like China, India and Russia.
Unfortunately it seems almost certain to me that climate change will continue to be a political football in the US for some time to come. If Trump wins that will just vindicate his view that he can bend reality. If Biden wins and (re)introduces carbon reduction policies those will have little or no effect on the worsening trend in the next few years - allowing Republicans to score easy points by saying the policies are useless. I'm not sure how bad things will have to get to make current climate skeptics think again, but my guess is pretty bad ...
Maybe Trump means that all the smoke will eventually cool off the Earth by blocking the sunlight? (Tongue in cheek of course, but more seriously, has anybody noticed how strange the sun looks lately because of the fires? I could stare directly at it without even squinting last night at around 7pm).
He may have meant that winter is around the corner, but that just illustrates the almost universal misunderstanding among deniers as to the difference between "climate" and "weather". If I had a dime for everytime someone pointed out it was cold on a certain day in a certain part of the country as evidence nothing is happening.........
This is a country whose mythology WORSHIPS the people who boarded a British ship, dumped it's entire contents into the sea, and then tarred and feathered a couple tax collectors to boot. Because "freedom". But these same people also have no problem launching indiscriminate clouds of chemical irritants into crowds of people when one of them throws a fucking water bottle in the general direction of a line of police dressed like they're in a dystopian action movie. Or, the case of Trump's walk to the church in DC, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, WELL in advance of the stipulated curfew. I've watched so many videos of unprovoked police violence and assault the last 2 or 3 months that if I downloaded all of them I'd have to buy a new SSD to have room to store them.
At least it's non-lethal. I guess a lot of people would rather they shoot into crowds or beat the shit out of them with batons. Maybe harsh language would work, but I doubt it...
People forget awful quickly that the now revered TOTALLY peaceful protests in Alabama in the 1960s WERE met with batons. And dogs. And firehoses. And that at the time, MLK wasn't viewed any more favorably than someone like Abbie Hoffman or Jerry Rubin. Same with Ali for sitting out the Vietnam War. Both men are viewed as heroes only in hindsight. At the time, they might as well have been on the FBI Most Wanted List.
I totally agree. Though I try to think that we have come a very long way from the brutal racism and outright thuggery of the 60's.
It just wasn't that long ago. It was all happening when my dad was in elementary school. There is a tendency to view it as ancient history.
That was literally two generations ago. Things are much different now than they were then. My daughter has no clue what all the fuss is about. I rather like that. Granted we live in a mostly white suburb, but she honestly can't fathom why anybody would care about somebody's race or sexual preference. That should be the goal in my opinion...
For many daughters in many neighborhoods, that's not the same reality. They mostly agree no one should care about anyone's race/sexual preference, but they see people treated differently precisely because of it.
Things were worse in the 1960s, but they arent perfect now.
Not worth burning down buildings and looting mostly black businesses though. There are better ways of achieving those goals in the modern era. Rioting and looting will get you four more years of Trump, not widescale change like you seem to think it will bring about.
The exact same arguments were used in the 1950s that Black people shouldnt make so much noise or agitate for social equality. They should just "wait their turn". People point to MLK, but the civil rights was much larger than just him, and not all of those protests were 100% peaceful.
FWIW - it was also (like now) mostly people who werent subject to racial discrimination at that time telling the oppressed exactly how they should conduct their protests, too.
Here's an example of how conservatives thought of the Civil Rights in the 1960s.
Sound familiar?
You know what though? This isn't the 1960's, but you sure as shit can turn it into the 1960's if you want to treat modern times like they're the same as they fucking were back then. People aren't the same now and the same actions will 'not' garner the same results. Mark my words...
Right, without Googling, can you tell me how many peaceful protests happened in the last 2 years? Can you name a single one of them? I bet you can't, and neither can most of the rest of the country. Riots don't come out of nowhere, and being murdered by the hundreds every years, while the murderers are PRAISED is gonna do it.
"I can't believe people are getting mad over being murdered. They won't get anywhere trying to fight back. Why don't do things civily and think the feelings of their murderers?"
Maybe you'd feel better if every black person in america laid down let themselves be murdered? Would that be more convienant?
Yeah that'd be great. That's totally where I'm coming from...
Btw: The reason why nobody hears about the peaceful protests is not because they're ineffective, it's because they're not sensational enough for what disguises itself in our country as news reporting...
Are there many cases of purely peaceful protests being successful? While I have to admit that I did not look very deeply into, it always seemed to me that the most successful movements always have a peaceful and a more violent arm - not dissimilar to the old good cop, bad cop routine.
You need the peaceful, calm people to demonstrate that you can talk with the movement, and unfortunately it seems like the more violent arm may be needed so that people see that it is also necessary to talk.
Would the 68 Civil Rights acts have passed without MLK? Certainly not. Would it have passed without the violent riots preceding and following his assassination? Probably not, or not as fast.
And while everyone knows Gandhi, would India be independent without the riots and rebellions?
I don't think this means physical violence is the answer. But I am not unconvinced that entirely passive protests are sufficient either - it seems that people need to be at least inconvenienced (blocking roads, economic impact, etc) to do something about those problems.
I totally agree with this. MLK was instrumental in Civil Rights, but so were people like Malcolm X. It's in the interest of the people in power (The Government) to glorify only the totally peaceful part of any movement because they dont want to incite violence against themselves - but it is often the case that these two things have to work in tandem for real change to occur.
Protests need to be uncomfortable for change to happen.
@Ammar "Are there many cases of purely peaceful protests being successful?"
The short answer is "no". Every civil rights change happened because the oppressed literally fought back. People in power LOVE peaceful protest, because its convienant and people ignore it.
Its why wonderful comments like, "The protests need to be peaceful" is tantamount to telling the oppressed to let themselves be killed. Peaceful protests have been happening non-stop in this country pretty much forever. Its only after people start fighting back that changes happens. The Civil War, Women's Sufferage, the 60s...
So, the South Dakota Attorney General claimed he hit a deer the other night. Turns out it wasn't a deer, it was a person, and that person is dead. It's a nice cover story, but it isn't plausible. I've hit a deer. I've hit a deer going 70 mph. There is absolutely no mistaking a deer for a human. There is even LESS mistaking the SMELL of a deer after you get home and get out of the car. In a part of the country where deer hunting is practically a religion, and where hitting a deer with your car before you turn 18 is basically a right of passage, this does not add up.
@Ammar "Are there many cases of purely peaceful protests being successful?"
The short answer is "no". Every civil rights change happened because the oppressed literally fought back. People in power LOVE peaceful protest, because its convienant and people ignore it.
Kapernick peacefully protested. Didn't get anything policy wise changed. Trump called him a sonofabitch and ranted about him anyway.
Might as well earn it I guess if Conservatives are going to attack you regardless of how peaceful you are in trying to get change.
These problems - kids in cages, climate emergencies, naked corruption, nepotism,
wild conspiracies and lying, undermining US allies, helping America's enemies, pardon abuse, civil unrest, science denialism, they will continue if Trump gets re-elected.
I can not imagine how snowed anyone must be by this conman, or so full of hate in their heart, that they are suckered by this guy. I mean how many more dead Americans is it going to take to realize Trump's America is the problem.
His relection message, which apparently is working for some reason is:
"Elect Biden and things will continue to be awful, like right now.
Elect Trump and things will continue to be awesome, like right now."
It's bewilderingly silly, spiteful and frankly sad.
Trump's ABC Townhall tonight proves just how insulated he has become in the White House and his rallies. Just absolutely non-sensical gibberish answers to questions from actual voters. His shameless answer about his non-existent healthcare plan and pre-existing conditions just the icing on a very large cake.
And it couldn't be any more clear just how much he doesn't give a fuck about the pandemic. He said Biden didn't implement a national mask mandate, as if Biden were President and not him. To be frank, I wouldn't put it past many of his supporters to convince themselves that's actually true.
Thanks for this @Balrog99. My personal inclination is certainly to support non-violent methods of resistance, so it's good to see evidence of the success of this. However, I think it's worth pointing out a couple of things about the methodology of this study.
1) It has a binary definition of whether a movement is violent or non-violent. When reading the original article I was struck by the categorization of protests in South Africa as non-violent, so dug further into the source material to confirm that any movement that is predominantly non-violent is categorized as entirely so. As an example that would very clearly mean that the Black Lives Matter protests in the US would be classed as non-violent.
I suspect it could well be possible to re-analyse the same data to demonstrate the effectiveness of non-violent movements that show a pathway to avoid a violent alternative becoming the predominant form of protest. However, the existing study ignores any interplay between violent and non-violent wings of an overall movement.
2) The data (at least in the original study that's the source of the posted article) is only about movements aimed at changing regimes (through the overthrow of a government, secession or expulsion of a military occupation). A common criterion for success is a move towards democratization. I'm not sure how applicable this data is to protests aiming at achieving specific results within a democratic framework (like BLM or climate protests for instance).
Comments
Yeah that'd be great. That's totally where I'm coming from...
Btw: The reason why nobody hears about the peaceful protests is not because they're ineffective, it's because they're not sensational enough for what disguises itself in our country as news reporting...
Not every fringe candidate is worth reporting on. How many votes do you actually think a person like this is going to receive?
It’ll only be news worthy if she wins the position, or comes very close to winning it.
And if she's "trolling" as he says, then it's actually responsible reporting to avoid giving a troll coverage.
"I'm a fresh-air breather" t-shirts. Fuck me. And notice how the mask-wearing has now been tied to the international pedophile ring. Apparently the only reason anyone is wearing one is to hide their true identity as a sex-slaver.
I'm not sure what is to be done when a significant portion of the population has willfully divorced themselves from reality and is now living on Pluto. I'm at a loss, I don't know how you combat it at this point. You can't do cult deprogramming on millions of people. Once someone is this far gone, there is no convincing to be done. Only an earth-shattering personal event can break the spell, if then.
I think the reason "left media" isn't jumping on the story because winning a local sheriff's primary election by default isn't really noteworthy; God knows how many sheriff primaries there are nationwide. It's very much local news.
She won the GOP's nomination for Sheriff in Cheshire County, a lot of votes I guess.
Why would she be unpopular in the trans community? If you could explain this I would love to understand it.
She is the first trans woman to win a GOP nomination in her county would that not make it news worthy though. Also how do you know Im a he dear. My name on this forum is Æmrys if that makes it easier for you.
My mistake. But not a ridiculous assumption to make given the demographics here. Also, I seem to be mistaken that you're interested in sincere conversation. "Why isn't the national press covering a longshot county-level candidate" doesn't strike me as a question a sincere interlocutor would insist on repeating, after already getting several obvious answers.
She ran unopposed.
Yes she did but the votes came from somewhere I don't think all her votes came from people who consider themselves left. I believe she got over four thousand so that also has to be a lot of trolls in on it as well. I personally believe this is satirical in nature and from what limited understanding I have of satanists they try to flip the orthodox of politics and religion on their head to prove the hypocrisy in them. Again this is all from my limited understanding if someone can share from experience I would be grateful to learn more.
But back to the sheriff candidate, another complaint was that she was, contrary to the Fox news headline, not an anarchist (a really niche identity in America) but an anarcho-capitalist, a more extreme form of libertarianism. Trans people consistently lean to the left, largely because the political right (especially the GOP leadership) generally doesn't like us, and capitalism isn't as popular among trans people because the trans population tends to be much poorer than the cis population. An anarcho-capitalist or libertarian would be more likely to agree that it should be legal for businesses to fire people for being trans, and most of us aren't chill with that.
I'm not sure a trans woman winning a nomination by default, without GOP voters even knowing who she is, is a big victory for trans rights. I see no reason to believe that those voters did know who she is unless either (1) she actually had a prior conservative following, which she doesn't, or (2) voters who saw her name and didn't recognize it on the ballot pulled out their phone to research if they wanted to vote for the only candidate there, which, no, people don't do.
How many GOP primary voters look up the names of each candidate on the primary ballot, even the ones running unopposed, AND would be okay with a transgender candidate, AND would be okay with an anti-police candidate for sheriff? I would genuinely be surprised if more than one person out of 4,000 GOP primary voters fit all of those criteria, and cast their vote for this woman knowing who she actually was.
I'm reasonably certain she won for the reasons she said she won: she submitted her name because there was no competition and she just waited for people to tick off the box blindly, as people do.
Satanists have tried to expose alleged religious hypocrisy by turning things on their head before, but I don't think this was specifically a Satanic thing, and it's worth pointing out that political stuff is just one small part of Satanism. A friend of mine is a member of the Satanic Temple and they're bigger on raising money for charity and conducting social events than staging publicity stunts or working politics.
Thank you for your well written explanation and opinions. I don't know many satanists but I have heard many do a lot of charity work.
Pretty much what I thought, the left didn't touch her story because none of the boxes checked off and the right did because the boxes did. Looks like to me she accomplished what she set out to do. Also I didn't know there is such a divide in the Trans community in regards to right and left, thank you for the insight. I can check off one of my boxes too for today learn something new. Thanks again you didn't have to but you did and I appreciate that.
https://www.philanthropydaily.com/satan-the-first-philanthropist/
Not exactly what I was looking for but a very thought provoking look at charity/philanthropy...
I laugh snorted so loud when the page opened and I saw the title. Thanks for a good laugh. The piece was very thought provoking indeed.
Agreed. I've come across plenty of 'Big' references, like Big Oil or Big Pharma. I haven't though seen Big Philanthropy before - but perhaps I should have done ...
What concerns me is not just the short-term damage Trump is doing, but the long term impact on how people think. It seems obvious to me that he has no sense of personal responsibility for his actions and he seems to be having some success in spreading that attitude. In relation to climate change there are a couple of main reasons that people don't support action - they don't believe it's happening, or they accept it's happening, but don't think they can do anything about it. Trump encourages both of those and a lack of personal responsibility will tend to make his argument more appealing that it doesn't matter what the US does, if they can't control other countries like China, India and Russia.
Unfortunately it seems almost certain to me that climate change will continue to be a political football in the US for some time to come. If Trump wins that will just vindicate his view that he can bend reality. If Biden wins and (re)introduces carbon reduction policies those will have little or no effect on the worsening trend in the next few years - allowing Republicans to score easy points by saying the policies are useless. I'm not sure how bad things will have to get to make current climate skeptics think again, but my guess is pretty bad ...
Are there many cases of purely peaceful protests being successful? While I have to admit that I did not look very deeply into, it always seemed to me that the most successful movements always have a peaceful and a more violent arm - not dissimilar to the old good cop, bad cop routine.
You need the peaceful, calm people to demonstrate that you can talk with the movement, and unfortunately it seems like the more violent arm may be needed so that people see that it is also necessary to talk.
Would the 68 Civil Rights acts have passed without MLK? Certainly not. Would it have passed without the violent riots preceding and following his assassination? Probably not, or not as fast.
And while everyone knows Gandhi, would India be independent without the riots and rebellions?
I don't think this means physical violence is the answer. But I am not unconvinced that entirely passive protests are sufficient either - it seems that people need to be at least inconvenienced (blocking roads, economic impact, etc) to do something about those problems.
Maybe Trump means that all the smoke will eventually cool off the Earth by blocking the sunlight? (Tongue in cheek of course, but more seriously, has anybody noticed how strange the sun looks lately because of the fires? I could stare directly at it without even squinting last night at around 7pm).
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/93578d/staggering-number-of-hysterectomies-happening-at-ice-facility-whistleblower-say
It's horrible, and totally unsurprising. I look forward to the cavalcade of people saying "They're not a Concentration Camps!"
I totally agree with this. MLK was instrumental in Civil Rights, but so were people like Malcolm X. It's in the interest of the people in power (The Government) to glorify only the totally peaceful part of any movement because they dont want to incite violence against themselves - but it is often the case that these two things have to work in tandem for real change to occur.
Protests need to be uncomfortable for change to happen.
The short answer is "no". Every civil rights change happened because the oppressed literally fought back. People in power LOVE peaceful protest, because its convienant and people ignore it.
Its why wonderful comments like, "The protests need to be peaceful" is tantamount to telling the oppressed to let themselves be killed. Peaceful protests have been happening non-stop in this country pretty much forever. Its only after people start fighting back that changes happens. The Civil War, Women's Sufferage, the 60s...
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencefocus.com/science/peaceful-protests-are-non-violent-demonstrations-an-effective-way-to-achieve-change/amp/
Kapernick peacefully protested. Didn't get anything policy wise changed. Trump called him a sonofabitch and ranted about him anyway.
Might as well earn it I guess if Conservatives are going to attack you regardless of how peaceful you are in trying to get change.
These problems - kids in cages, climate emergencies, naked corruption, nepotism,
wild conspiracies and lying, undermining US allies, helping America's enemies, pardon abuse, civil unrest, science denialism, they will continue if Trump gets re-elected.
I can not imagine how snowed anyone must be by this conman, or so full of hate in their heart, that they are suckered by this guy. I mean how many more dead Americans is it going to take to realize Trump's America is the problem.
His relection message, which apparently is working for some reason is:
"Elect Biden and things will continue to be awful, like right now.
Elect Trump and things will continue to be awesome, like right now."
It's bewilderingly silly, spiteful and frankly sad.
And it couldn't be any more clear just how much he doesn't give a fuck about the pandemic. He said Biden didn't implement a national mask mandate, as if Biden were President and not him. To be frank, I wouldn't put it past many of his supporters to convince themselves that's actually true.
Thanks for this @Balrog99. My personal inclination is certainly to support non-violent methods of resistance, so it's good to see evidence of the success of this. However, I think it's worth pointing out a couple of things about the methodology of this study.
1) It has a binary definition of whether a movement is violent or non-violent. When reading the original article I was struck by the categorization of protests in South Africa as non-violent, so dug further into the source material to confirm that any movement that is predominantly non-violent is categorized as entirely so. As an example that would very clearly mean that the Black Lives Matter protests in the US would be classed as non-violent.
I suspect it could well be possible to re-analyse the same data to demonstrate the effectiveness of non-violent movements that show a pathway to avoid a violent alternative becoming the predominant form of protest. However, the existing study ignores any interplay between violent and non-violent wings of an overall movement.
2) The data (at least in the original study that's the source of the posted article) is only about movements aimed at changing regimes (through the overthrow of a government, secession or expulsion of a military occupation). A common criterion for success is a move towards democratization. I'm not sure how applicable this data is to protests aiming at achieving specific results within a democratic framework (like BLM or climate protests for instance).