General Politics Discussion (V) [ARCHIVED] • Page 8

Hmm:

PART 2: “How the FBI Created a Terrorist” by Entrapping Mentally Ill Man in Florida | Democracy Now!

 

Both threads address the manifesto.

None blame children.

 

That it comes off as a co-sign when it's posted in here. If we're talking about a nuanced conversation about their thoughts on gun control, it's unnecessarily hostile.

 

How it appears to me is people are basically saying to those on the receiving end of state violence on a daily basis: “leave these white children alone”

Despite the fact that they have been traumatized as well and are trying to have their voices heard, they’re being told that they’re being too mean when they’re just offering up a critique of their ideas. I mean, these are the basics of discourse. Why can’t they be heard?

 

Equifax Picks Private Equity Executive as New C.E.O.

This will end well

 

And those people are criticized! They're corrected when they're wrong and they try not to be by making use of the resources at their disposal to write better policy. There's nothing wrong with appeal to emotion but the policy should be worth using that appeal.

If a voter wanted to propose a policy I would expect them to research the policy before doing so, and if they didn't and produced bad policy, I would criticize it. If it was particularly bad policy I might use harsh language. These kids have resources - or if not their organization certainly does - that they could have used to better effect.

Fuck off about being dishonest. It's like a 25 tweet thread that goes into specifics and links to other threads and research supporting the criticism. The fact that the first tweet said "the manifesto is bad" instead of "many parts of the manifesto are bad" does not mean the other 24 tweets don't have specific and detailed criticism.

Ok so you've admitted that its impossible to go about this on twitter in what you've deemed as the only acceptable way, and you've said a detailed and specific critique on twitter is going to be taken as a personal attack no matter what. Essentially, you're saying there is no acceptable way to go about this for someone who doesn't have a better platform than twitter. Good stuff.

 

This is a pretty disingenuous interpretation of what is actually being said, by someone who is calling for a need for more nuance.

 

Yes, its weird how its assumed that no one else has had a traumatic experience that might inform their opinions and demeanor on this subject. Anything wrong with the manifesto is explained away and all but very specific and, for most, impossible to provide criticism of it disallowed by the trauma of its authors. But the trauma of the critics isn't a factor

 

if you're going to bring up the post then link it

 

Caught up, I missed one argument, great

I was reading the San Harris sub reddit last night and a lot of his own fans were shooting on him which was nice to see. Weird how he wants to talk about race/IQ only with a conservative dude and not experts in the field who disagree with him, it’s almost like he doesn’t care about facts and only wants to appeal to the feelings of his white followers who want to pretend racism ended decades ago. Real safe space he’s got going on.

 

Weirdly, the platform of the Movement for Black Lives doesn't seem to be exempt from criticism because of the authors' trauma. At least, that's what I gather from the liberal reaction to its plank about solidarity with Palestine.

 

I absolutely think discussion between the Parkland survivors and marginalized groups that frequently deal with gun violence should be paramount to their cause because the former still clearly has a lot to learn from the latter.

I was glad to see in the Time interview, they recognize their privilege and have linked up with causes in the south side of Chicago. I hope they do the same with other causes and take their criticism seriously.

 

I mean, I’m not the one attempting to silence criticisms from people outside of the white, upper middle-class bubble. There seems to be different standards: “These are kids that went through a trauma and won’t always have good ideas.” Along comes other young people that happen to be black who say: “this is terrible. You’re putting people in danger from my community and others. That’s fucked up”, to which people respond in horror because, I guess, their voices don’t matter. I’m not really sure of the rationale to be honest. Something tells me it has to do with the color of their skin, though.

 

I think finding more nuance would be comparing treatment and support towards the Parkland kids vs also young BLM activists who are also fighting against gun violence and are from communities which "common sense" gun laws won't affect.

 

Had trouble finding it. Here it is:

 

ah it was me who posted it, had a feeling it was. maybe because you know, i'm middle eastern. and these kids have a platform. and they're being generic liberals.

 

I mean, there's certainly a point there about a "movement for our lives" supporting an institution that kills children regularly. I guess that's where the "our" part comes in. But, you know, idunno, if their trauma justifies advocating policies like more cops in school, maybe a little rage on behalf of murdered middle eastern children is justified? Especially considering one (the proposal for more cops in schools) is coming from what has quickly become one of the preeminent activist organizations in the country and the other (a mean tweet) is from some random on twitter.

I wonder which might cause more actual harm?

 

Emma Gonzalez isn’t white. Naomi Wadler isn’t white. I get the critique of the manifesto, and the problematic ways in which the Parkland students’ activism has been received when compared to the activism and protests by communities of color after violence against people of color, but there are prominent, non-white voices in this movement that are disserviced by classifying them as white.