"It's only censorship if the government does it"

[Spinachcat]

It's important to divide protestors vs. rioters.

But if we're gonna declare all protestors are patriots, that's gotta include KKK marches.

And I'm okay with that. Peaceful marchers using their freedom of speech is patriotic in a sense, regardless if I agree or disagree with the speech.

Protesting does not make you a hero if you're protesting something like BLM is.

There's a spectrum of BLM protestors, but as usual, the worst of any group get the most media attention.

The last few have been actually fucking armed.  The one that started all this tried to grab a cop's gun.

Agreed, but I'm sympathetic to concerns about police killing actual unarmed people (even the ones acting stupid during the arrest), and I am sympathetic to the issue that black Americans seem to be killed by cops for the same crimes where non-black Americans are taken into custody.

What did you ever do?

I play a Cleric when nobody else wants to.

I think that makes me a living saint.

Dollar amount Please.  You keep talking about good paying jobs are hard to come by, but never give an amount.

More than $52,000.

Why? 52k is the national median household income.

But that would be piss in Los Angeles.

I don't think it is at all desirable to have employers wield that kind of power over our beliefs, words and actions, away from the work place. People have become far too comfortable with this idea. And it is made worse because people actively use it as a lever to silence people when they say things they disagree with.

Agreed.

The scary part is how people (both Right and Left) are getting okay with this idea.

[crkrueger]

I don't think it is at all desirable to have employers wield that kind of power over our beliefs, words and actions, away from the work place. People have become far too comfortable with this idea. And it is made worse because people actively use it as a lever to silence people when they say things they disagree with.

That's the problem with all this Neo-Censorship, people are too fucking stupid these days to realize that their lovely tool of ideological oppression, can be turned directly against them.  So they are happy to give up freedom to the government to the corporations, anyone that will pretend to be on their side, to achieve their ends, realizing they just gave up the only protection they had against someone doing the exact same thing to them.

[crkrueger]

I can try.  I will need your help, you will have to try to understand what I am saying instead of just waiting for me to be wrong so you can pounce on it.

First voting.  The act of voting supports the status quo because that is the path the powers that be have chosen to make change.  Or if we are to personify the status quo, voting is how the status quo accepts input.  So voting is a sanctioned approved activity. It supports the status quo.  (I happen to think its a good thing to do as well). It also doesn't seem to make change.  We just trade one set of overlords in for another.

Not burning stuff is easy.  Burning stuff is an attack against the status quo, so not burning it supports the quo.  Unless you are burning out disonants, for example the burning the KKK did supported the status Quo.

Volunteering strengthens the community.  It makes it easier to live as things are.  If you can live ok as things stand you are less likely to demand change.  So volunteering at a food bank or animal shelter strengthens the status quo.  

I realize the argument is not iron clad, I think it's a weakness of my rhetoric, not the argument it's self.  Hopefully you can understand what I am trying to say.

"The only way to win is not to play."  I understand the argument, I heard it many years ago in ecological circles.  Basically let the whole fucking thing collapse, it's the only way to get anyone to give a shit.

At some point people will realize unenlightened, short-term, unrestrained-ID, economic self-interest is not the way to run a human society.  Until then, who gives a fuck, ride it out and hope the guillotine doesn't fall on you.

[jeff37923]

Not burning stuff is easy.  Burning stuff is an attack against the status quo, so not burning it supports the quo.  Unless you are burning out disonants, for example the burning the KKK did supported the status Quo.

OK, this is just Gross Conceptual Error level of wrong. In the context of the BLM riots and looting, most of those have happened in predominantly black communities. If BLM exists to fight against black oppression and these riots are designed to carry that fight to the oppressors, then why are they destroying the livelihoods of their own neighbors by looting the same businesses owned by those oppressed blacks? It is nonsensical, counterproductive, and is turning public opinion against BLM itself. As an attack against the status quo, it is incredibly ineffective.

[Headless]

"The only way to win is not to play."  I understand the argument, I heard it many years ago in ecological circles.  Basically let the whole fucking thing collapse, it's the only way to get anyone to give a shit.

At some point people will realize unenlightened, short-term, unrestrained-ID, economic self-interest is not the way to run a human society.  Until then, who gives a fuck, ride it out and hope the guillotine doesn't fall on you.

That is not what I was trying to say. But based on the examples I gave I could see why you thought that. It is possible to make change.  

Running for office could threaten the status quo where merely voting would not.  Volunteering on a political campaign might.   Bernie and Trump stand for change Hilary does not.  (I don't actually think trump will try to change anything but that's what he stands for.)

Volunteering with an animal shelter upholds the status quo, volunteering  with PETA who are against the institution of pets would attack it.

[yosemitemike]

The idea that protester=patriot is ridiculous sophistry.  It stretches the definition of patriotic so far that the word becomes completely meaningless.  Patriotic means having or showing great love and support for your country.  Freedom of speech is a foundational principle of American law but simply exercising that right in not inherently patriotic in any meaningful sense.  Is someone who is saying that the US is an evil racist country that condones blacks being hunted in the streets by the police for the crime of being black being patriotic because they are exercising their freedom of speech to say that?  No.  They obviously aren't unless you torture the language until it confesses to witchcraft to equate any exercise of free speech right with patriotism.  Up is down, black is white and hating something is showing great love for it.  Protesting isn't inherently patriotism any more than praying or carrying a gun are inherently patriotism

Agreed, but I'm sympathetic to concerns about police killing actual unarmed people (even the ones acting stupid during the arrest), and I am sympathetic to the issue that black Americans seem to be killed by cops for the same crimes where non-black Americans are taken into custody.

This narrative just isn't true.  Accounting for crime rates, whites are more, not less, likely to be shot by police.  Police are more, not less, willing to use lethal force against white suspects than they are against black suspects.  This doesn't fit the narrative so no one cares.

More than $52,000.

Why? 52k is the national median household income.

That's for a household which may include multiple wage earners.  Real media personal income is around $30k a year.

[kosmos1214]

I play a Cleric when nobody else wants to.

I think that makes me a living saint.

I know this is a serious thread but I can't help my self there's a song for that.
[video=youtube;Snt9QlL4ZCo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snt9QlL4ZCo[/youtube]
Not exactly D&D but it's the same point.

[Nexus]

The last few have been actually fucking armed.  The one that started all this tried to grab a cop's gun.  This isn't a problem, it's housekeeping.

Which last few are you referring too?

[yosemitemike]

Which last few are you referring too?

Alton Sterling and Sylville Smith to name a couple.  People responded to a report that Sterling was brandishing a firearm.  When they tried to arrest him, he resisted arrest and reached for a gun.  He was then shot.  Smith ran from a traffic stop and then turned toward pursuing police with a stolen gun in his hand.  He was then shot.  Both of these cases were widely reported as unarmed black men being shot by police.

[Headless]

The idea that protester=patriot is ridiculous sophistry.  It stretches the definition of patriotic so far that the word becomes completely meaningless.  Patriotic means having or showing great love and support for your country.  Freedom of speech is a foundational principle of American law but simply exercising that right in not inherently patriotic in any meaningful sense.  Is someone who is saying that the US is an evil racist country that condones blacks being hunted in the streets by the police for the crime of being black being patriotic because they are exercising their freedom of speech to say that?  No.  They obviously aren't unless you torture the language until it confesses to witchcraft to equate any exercise of free speech right with patriotism.  Up is down, black is white and hating something is showing great love for it.  Protesting isn't inherently patriotism any more than praying or carrying a gun are inherently patriotism

Protesting isn't inherently patriotic. But neither is joining the army.  What makes both of them patriotic is the willingness to sacrifice for the love of your country.  A guy who joins up for college money doesn't nesscessarly love his country.  Someone taking a knee during the national anthem probably doesn't hate his country, they're just mad at it.  Taking a knee during the national anthem is taking a risk to try to make positive change.  People willing to do that are patriots.

[Nexus]

I

Agreed, but I'm sympathetic to concerns about police killing actual unarmed people (even the ones acting stupid during the arrest), and I am sympathetic to the issue that black Americans seem to be killed by cops for the same crimes where non-black Americans are taken into custody.

The armed suspect killed that I heard of was apparently shot for having holstered and liscenced pistol that he told the officer about when the cop panicked

[Melichor]

Taking a knee during the national anthem is taking a risk to try to make positive change.  People willing to do that are patriots.

They are neither patriots nor trying to make a positive change, and there is very little risk to their action. They are essentially saying look at me, in Kaepernick's case he was trying to keep himself relevant from the depths of the bench, after of summer of being the news.
Refusing to play until something is done, that's taking a stand and a risk.
Working with the police and the community to bridge an understanding and better relationship, that's positive change.

Taking a knee is just grandstanding.

[yosemitemike]

Protesting isn't inherently patriotic. But neither is joining the army.  What makes both of them patriotic is the willingness to sacrifice for the love of your country.  A guy who joins up for college money doesn't nesscessarly love his country.  Someone taking a knee during the national anthem probably doesn't hate his country, they're just mad at it.  Taking a knee during the national anthem is taking a risk to try to make positive change.  People willing to do that are patriots.

No one said that joining the Army is inherently patriotic so that part is just a straw man.  

So if you are mad at something and want it to change to suit you, that's showing great love and support for that thing?  Taking a grandiose moral stance doing something for which he received no punishment from the NFL was taking a risk?  Not really.  It was more jumping on a popular bandwagon for a fashionable cause.  Moral grandstanding is seeking positive change now?  People who make a big show of how they don't like something are showing support for that thing?  Doublespeak and bollocks.

[crkrueger]

No one said that joining the Army is inherently patriotic so that part is just a straw man.  

So if you are mad at something and want it to change to suit you, that's showing great love and support for that thing?  Taking a grandiose moral stance doing something for which he received no punishment from the NFL was taking a risk?  Not really.  It was more jumping on a popular bandwagon for a fashionable cause.  Moral grandstanding is seeking positive change now?  People who make a big show of how they don't like something are showing support for that thing?  Doublespeak and bollocks.

So you never took a friend aside and said "Dude, about this chick you're seein..."  Or maybe had a friend who needed a sitdown, or even a beatdown about their addictions or shit they've gotten themselves into?  You don't get enraged about shit you don't care about.

[yosemitemike]

So you never took a friend aside and said "Dude, about this chick you're seein..."  Or maybe had a friend who needed a sitdown, or even a beatdown about their addictions or shit they've gotten themselves into?  You don't get enraged about shit you don't care about.

Since neither of those things involves a public spectacle or moral grandstanding, they are not at all comparable.  Disliking something is caring about it too.