Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT strips 4301-4305 (6th July to 10 July 2020)
Potato Farmer:
--- Quote from: Gyrre on 10 Jul 2020, 14:14 ---It goes beyond that, though.
Here's a pretty basic illustration: There's a plate with three cookies and three people are present. The rich guy leans over to the white guy a tells him "The black guy is trying to steal your cookie." While the white guy isn't looking, the rich guy takes all three cookies and leaves the other two with only half of the thiird cookie.
It's the manipulation and instillment of fear and distrust. It's the pushing of learned helplessness. It's the discouragement of non-aggressive communication between groups. And it all takes place over several years while playing the long game.
--- End quote ---
It's both honestly. At the core of it all lies the fact that different groups have trouble getting along which then gets exploited in various ways, from amplifying the distrust to actively encouraging people to be antagonistic towards one another.
the silent firefly:
--- Quote from: zmeiat_joro on 10 Jul 2020, 08:50 ---That's what people like these trolls often don't understand (or maybe they do, but don't care anyway): they've made up a label for "these people I don't like" (SJW)
--- End quote ---
exacly. see also "all trump supporters are racist" and "all liberals are progressives"
--- Quote from: Zebediah on 10 Jul 2020, 09:26 ---You’re treating social justice as a zero-sum game - more justice for some must necessarily mean less justice for others. Congratulations, you’ve walked right into their trap. Now you’re blaming people who just wanted the same rights as everyone else, instead of the people who actually looted your program.
None of this has to be zero-sum. Your funding didn’t have to be pulled to support BLM, and nobody in BLM was demanding that. A choice was made by people in power to execute this in such a way as to divide people rather than unite them.
--- End quote ---
of course it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. but since it's politics in the US, then it certainly will be.
any group attempting to make a difference through politics is doomed to fail because US politics has failed. and that is because discussion has failed and we can blame traditional media narratives and social media algorithms for that. if you are not engaged with the other side, then you are almost certainly not making a difference in your community.
as far as BLM goes, there is only one real solution and it's a total Law Enforcement overhaul including exponentially increasing funding to pay for training, routine psych evals, increased oversight, etc. and they should all have to reapply for their jobs. i was also a big fan of Andrew Yang's idea of requiring all LEO's to attain purple belts in jujitsu.
Gyrre:
--- Quote from: Potato Farmer on 10 Jul 2020, 14:19 ---
--- Quote from: Gyrre on 10 Jul 2020, 14:14 ---It goes beyond that, though.
Here's a pretty basic illustration: There's a plate with three cookies and three people are present. The rich guy leans over to the white guy a tells him "The black guy is trying to steal your cookie." While the white guy isn't looking, the rich guy takes all three cookies and leaves the other two with only half of the thiird cookie.
It's the manipulation and instillment of fear and distrust. It's the pushing of learned helplessness. It's the discouragement of non-aggressive communication between groups. And it all takes place over several years while playing the long game.
--- End quote ---
It's both honestly. At the core of it all lies the fact that different groups have trouble getting along which then gets exploited in various ways, from amplifying the distrust to actively encouraging people to be antagonistic towards one another.
--- End quote ---
And all for the benefit of a very few incredibly selfish individuals.
Potato Farmer:
--- Quote from: Gyrre on 10 Jul 2020, 14:35 ---And all for the benefit of a very few incredibly selfish individuals.
--- End quote ---
Humanity's history repeated a couple of times.
N.N. Marf:
--- Quote from: Zebediah on 10 Jul 2020, 03:44 ---Want to know what bugs me? People who think that basic civil rights and social justice for all are the unattainable and undesirable fantasies of a lunatic fringe. Just saying.
--- End quote ---
Want to know what bugs me? People who think that many people think that basic civil rights are undesirable. Just saying.
--- Quote from: Mr_Rose on 10 Jul 2020, 05:50 ---
--- Quote from: chris73 on 10 Jul 2020, 04:51 ---Just because a words in there doesn't make it so, North Korea is officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea after all and i don't think they're big on democracy
--- End quote ---
You should consider that the only people that call North Korea that are the assholes that named it that.
--- End quote ---
This is an important point. If it's not social justice, don't call it social justice. Don't even mention that someone thinks it's social justice---you're only spreading the misuse. Eventually, someone hears "social justice" about whatever that is so many times, that they start calling it "social justice". There's always someone who'll think that anything called that is that. So you get doublethink. You say "social justice is bad" and they hear you think that what is social justice is bad. Or you say "social justice is good" and they hear you think that what's called "social justice" is good. The problem is that we're using a term that has 2 opposite meanings.
--- Quote from: chris73 on 10 Jul 2020, 07:41 ---Well for what its worth you have my respect, I'm a Corrections Officer and I couldn't do what you do with the obstacles that you face
--- End quote ---
For anyone that doesn't follow penal euphemisms, "corrections officer" means prison guard. By the way, I'm terribly sorry that you're in the sucky position of having to work for a prison.
--- Quote from: JimC on 10 Jul 2020, 07:46 ---The thing about single issue activists, whether political, environmental or anything else, is that by definition they are utterly blinkered and incapable of seeing the big picture.
--- End quote ---
By definition? I can understand that caring about only the one thing can make it easy to ignore other things, but I don't think that prevents them from being aware of other things. Of course, I can see how one might come to that conclusion. Most of my interactions with activists was when they're "on the job". Now, if I'm not mistaken, when the activist is working for an issue in the "raise awareness" department, he's probably going to talk about that one issue, not about some other issues. He could well care about other issues, but his present focus is on the one issue that he's presently working for. From the other perspective, a "general" activist, who cares about the "big picture", would have to choose whether to spread his efforts among all the issues he cares about, or to focus on trying to solve one specific issue. It's often the case that doing one thing at a time is more effective than doing multiple things at the same time. Of course, it's important to not forget about other issues, otherwise you might get a situation like you described about reducing one pollution while raising another.
--- Quote from: JimC on 10 Jul 2020, 07:46 ---The BLM activists didn't want funding removed from the groups you mention, they were simply so far off their radar that they didn't consider them at all.
--- End quote ---
Practically, there's no difference. Sure, their intentions might be clear, but if the result is funding goes from other issues to their issues, they're effectively taking that money from the other issues. Sure, it's not their fault that who they get money from simply redirects the funding, but if their intent isn't to take the help that others would have gotten, then that should be something they consider.
--- Quote from: cesium133 on 10 Jul 2020, 12:58 ---Perhaps they’re [Ellicott-Chatham] more similar than they would like to admit.
--- End quote ---
I thought it was quite natural. Not similarity, but the combination of the idealist (Ellicot) the pragmatist (Chatham). Another example is the Steves of Fruitbasket. Ellicot's position heading a powerful research company is probably due much to Chatham's business sense. Likewise, Chatham's industries being as powerful as they are today was probably aided by the ideas from Ellicott's mind. Together, they'd be quite powerful, but making such a union live long would probably take a lot of work.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version