Kaep

[jimmy eat jazz]

That is your opinion of what is happening.

My opinion is that a bunch of different people are talking about an issue and the manner it was raised. Some agree completely, some in part and some not at all. In that respect Kaep's protest has been very successful.

Why not just call racism on anyone disagreeing at all like you want to? (if we are going with what we feel is implied)

I don't think there's any doubt that this is what's happening. It doesn't explain ALL of the response to Kaep, but it without a doubt explains some of it.

I don't call racism, because I don't thing that's what it is in many cases (in some case, yes, but certainly not Joe B, who gives me no reason to think he's a racist). You've mischaracterized my argument here. I do, however, think it's important for those whose knee jerk response is to presume to dictate to Kaep and others the parameters of their social protest (particularly those beloning to the existing power structure) to reflect on what their response to this would be if they found themselves on the other side (e.g., beloing to the disempowered group) and how they would react to someone like themselves, sitting from a position of power, dictating the parameters of their social protest to them.

 

[Stoked]

I don't believe at all that you're saying Kaep, or anyone else, doesn't have the right to protest. The issue here is that you, and others, are prescribing/dictating the parameters (methods, aims, etc.) of that protest. Kaep is protesting against social inequities imposed on people of color by existing social/ political/legal/etc. power stuctures, so I find the spectacle of people beloninging to those power structures to presume to dictate that parameters of the protest to be yet another example of their wanting to impose their will on the disempowered. Plus, I find laughable the notion that social potest by those outside of the power structure should avoid giving offense to those beloning to the power strucure, or to avoid hurting their feelings. Rich stuff.

I agree with the bolded. That they should not offend anyone is foolish. They can offend all they want, have at it. It is their feelings and their protest. I agree 100% with that. Those that do find offense will survive just fine. They can get over it.

There is no right to not be offended. And when you are nothing happens.
[MENTION=460]jimmy eat jazz[/MENTION] as for my implied racism charge. Just feels like that is exactly what you are doing to Joe. He said X so he must mean Y.

Now I don't really think you are leveling charges of racism. But it can certainly be inferred that way.

As for the whole dictating the parameters of acceptable protest argument. Sure some people are doing that. Like Trent Dilfer for example. But from my POV the majority are not doing that. They are just talking about the how and why and what they think of it.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I don't believe at all that you're saying Kaep, or anyone else, doesn't have the right to protest. The issue here is that you, and others, are prescribing/dictating the parameters (methods, aims, etc.) of that protest. Kaep is protesting against social inequities imposed on people of color by existing social/ political/legal/etc. power stuctures, so I find the spectacle of people beloninging to those power structures to presume to dictate that parameters of the protest to be yet another example of their wanting to impose their will on the disempowered. Plus, I find laughable the notion that social potest by those outside of the power structure should avoid giving offense to those beloning to the power strucure, or to avoid hurting their feelings. Rich stuff.

If I see a thirsty guy pouring water in his ear I'm going to say, "Hey pal, try putting some of it in your mouth." You might not like that people have discovered that certain methods are more effective than others, but that's just the way it is.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I agree with the bolded. That they should not offend anyone is foolish. They can offend all they want, have at it. It is their feelings and their protest. I agree 100% with that. Those that do find offense will survive just fine. They can get over it.

There is no right to not be offended. And when you are nothing happens.

Stoked, all that is required to prove the the first part of my argument is to read what's in the news and on social media to determine whether there are instances of people belonging to power structures prescribing the parameters of Kaep's protest.

Here's a few examples:

White
Law enforcement
Military
Moneyed/educated elite

Juding by the thousands upon thousands examples of the above, I believe that my argument is empircally accurate and non-controversial NOT opinon. (Note I have not claimed that members of the above and other power groups universally are presecribing the parameters of Kaep's protest, but enough of them are to prove my point.)

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

If I see a thirsty guy pouring water in his ear I'm going to say, "Hey pal, try putting some of it in your mouth." You might not like that people have discovered that certain methods are more effective than others, but that's just the way it is.

This analogy totally ignores what is at the heart here; social/political/economic/ etc. power assymetries and how they intersect with social justice. You simply cannot analyze this without considering aspects of power dynamics.

 

[Stoked]

Sorry, quick responses and not as through or as thoughtful as I'd like.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

This analogy totally ignores what is at the heart here; social/political/economic/ etc. power assymetries and how they intersect with social justice. You simply cannot analyze this without considering aspects of power dynamics.

I think simple actions are way more effective than complicated words.

 

[NAOS]

Sorry, quick responses and not as through or as thoughtful as I'd like.

not 'as through', eh?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I think simple actions are way more effective than complicated words.

But you just said that protestors have to have a long, specific, wordy explanation of their platform for you to take it seriously while shunning the "simple action" of protesting a flag ceremony.

Are you saying what you agree with needs to be simple and what you don't agree with has to be complicated to justify what you agree with? This is the strangest post yet.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I think simple actions are way more effective than complicated words.

But that's part of the point. It is a complicated issue that involves complex and interrlated problems (including power assymetries) and that requires reflection, discussion, etc. Talking points don't do the trick here, neither does members of power structures dimsissing Kaep's protest because it doesn't fall within the paramters they would impose on members of disempowered groups engaging in social protest.

 

[Stoked]

not 'as through', eh?

Exactly my point lol.

 

[Stoked]

Stoked, all that is required to prove the the first part of my argument is to read what's in the news and on social media to determine whether there are instances of people belonging to power structures prescribing the parameters of Kaep's protest.

Here's a few examples:

White
Law enforcement
Military
Moneyed/educated elite

Juding by the thousands upon thousands examples of the above, I believe that my argument is empircally accurate and non-controversial NOT opinon. (Note I have not claimed that members of the above and other power groups universally are presecribing the parameters of Kaep's protest, but enough of them are to prove my point.)

That's fine but I do not think those are accurate bench marks to conclusively determine your point. The reason I don't is that people within those exact groups still have wildly varying opinions. Those parameters are not enough to make that call imo. Blanket statements don't work (you acknowledge this). That is my opinion. We disagree but I doubt that surprises either of us.

I will admit that I find you are both engaging/thought provoking and blindly frustrating. Hopefully I am more than just frustrating to you lol.