What's new

Antifa at it again in Oregon lol

I know the difference between the two, but as a bystander who does not have much invested in their movement or had reason to scrutinize them, I was always under the impression they were pushing for equal treatment by law enforcement. You're telling me they are publicly asking for more than that?

yes, always have been. So much so, that they have publicly NEVER been about law enforcement.

it was only this past year that they jumped on the "defund the police" movement, and that is their first notes about police at all.

it has ALWAYS been the claim that Police brutality against black people anywhere at anytime is merely a function of system racism and inherent and unresolvable white supremacy and the internalized whiteness of concepts such as "individualism and nuclear families" which must be destroyed.

it is why black MEN have only ever mattered when they are available to use as tokens upon death.

The apathetic majority has the same impression you've got, that is how the media whitewashed (pun intended :rasta: ) it to sell to the public and why their support has generally dropped after they get long-er term media exposure.

it has also always been about driving a diametrically opposed "awareness campaign" of driving the white/black (not brown or POC) divide so as to create a more volatile situation. they desperately seek to grown extremism on the other side for further justification and profit.
 
yes, always have been. So much so, that they have publicly NEVER been about law enforcement.

it was only this past year that they jumped on the "defund the police" movement, and that is their first notes about police at all.

it has ALWAYS been the claim that Police brutality against black people anywhere at anytime is merely a function of system racism and inherent and unresolvable white supremacy and the internalized whiteness of concepts such as "individualism and nuclear families" which must be destroyed.

it is why black MEN have only ever mattered when they are available to use as tokens upon death.

The apathetic majority has the same impression you've got, that is how the media whitewashed (pun intended :rasta: ) it to sell to the public and why their support has generally dropped after they get long-er term media exposure.

it has also always been about driving a diametrically opposed "awareness campaign" of driving the white/black (not brown or POC) divide so as to create a more volatile situation. they desperately seek to grown extremism on the other side for further justification and profit.

You get it but you’re probably wasting your time...
:flipoff2:
 
yes, always have been. So much so, that they have publicly NEVER been about law enforcement.

it was only this past year that they jumped on the "defund the police" movement, and that is their first notes about police at all.

it has ALWAYS been the claim that Police brutality against black people anywhere at anytime is merely a function of system racism and inherent and unresolvable white supremacy and the internalized whiteness of concepts such as "individualism and nuclear families" which must be destroyed.

it is why black MEN have only ever mattered when they are available to use as tokens upon death.

The apathetic majority has the same impression you've got, that is how the media whitewashed (pun intended :rasta: ) it to sell to the public and why their support has generally dropped after they get long-er term media exposure.

it has also always been about driving a diametrically opposed "awareness campaign" of driving the white/black (not brown or POC) divide so as to create a more volatile situation. they desperately seek to grown extremism on the other side for further justification and profit.

Well today I learned something new. Thanks for the lesson.
 
who provides the shoes?



you just described communism.


but this new equity in your scenario is more like this: two guys need to walk the same 10 mile road. one has shoes and walks it. the other doesnt have shoes so he sits down. A car comes along and picks up the guy who sat down and takes him to the end of the 10 mile road. The guy who walked it, though he had shoes, would have gotten the same ride if he had been sitting there on the side of the road. So in this scenario, this equity encourages you to not work, regardless of what you have.

well, you could argue that creating the road was socialism. we all pay in (well the donor states pay more, but you know, lets not go to the C word just yet) so, one feller has a pair of shoes and the other guy has to go just as far, if he starts the journey, likely as not, he is gonna get blisters or worse which will mean the fire dept will go out and emt and they'll treat him or transport him for more treatment which will have a cost that probably he doesn't have either.

So, by doing it that way, we avoid criticism of becoming 'communists' but it costs a lot more, everyone is worse off and for the price of pair of shoes, we are paying 100X more.

We can't say he got a fair shot, because he was behind when he started.

I think if you asked the guy with no shoes how often some car stopped to give him a ride, he'd laugh and say he hasnt seen a car in years... everyone talks about the cars, nobody has them except people who don't drive on that road.

We have tried, kinda, the equality route and nobody is happy. Why not try the equity thing and see if it doesn't kick start some people, it will surely cost less than how we don't do it now.
 
Equality vs. Equity. The difference between equality and equity must be emphasised. Although both promote fairness, equality achieves this through treating everyone the same regardless of need, while equity achieves this through treating people differently dependent on need.

So, what are the exact issues with equity vs. equality?

if you had two guys who had to walk 10 miles, one guy has shoes, the other guy is barefoot, equality lets them walk the same road, equity lends the guy with no shoes some shoes so he can make the walk.

Not everyone will agree to lend the shoes, but that is the debate. Pick your side.

this is part of the fucking problem.

I recently got a work study group memo that obviously and likely intentionally conflates equality and equity. the pre-written and transposed part (because it doesn't jib with the overall rest of the paper or pertain to our industry) defines it thusly:

Equality is ensuring everybody is invited to the dance, Equity is ensuring everybody has a ride to the dance (which turns in to everybody being forced to accept the ride in practice) and Fairness is asking everybody to dance.

equity is bullshit and is ONLY a means for wealth redistribution and the destruction of notions such as "personal property" and ownership. THAT is explicitly why this BS fits other "Critical" theories coming from the Marxist (explicitly) think tanks.

The ONLY end state for "true equity" is nobody having shoes. this is what happens every. single. time. that it is tried and why individualism and contract law and personal property are such a universally beneficial model and "most good for most people"

If we look at any modern example or recent modern example of a classless and full equity society <-any grouping of people regardless of size, you will find that the current "successful" ones are stone age or early bronze age standards of living. with the high illiteracy and low infant survivability and low innovation and non-existent excess that goes along with that. There are more of those that are close but are also strongly patriarchal as well, and they are typically with a long history of acquiescing to violence from "others"
 
You get it but you’re probably wasting your time...
:flipoff2:

it is well worth wasting time on.

it is a massive insult to everybody what the narrative is pushed and people simply accept and has been brewing for a very long time. Demands in the streets include "have uncomfortable conversations" and i'm plenty happy to have them.
 
That's only as long as you're thinking about equity in terms of money or assets.

Take learning for example: the kid who is struggling with a math concept gets the extra help so they can succeed and the kid who wasn't struggling is happy to have to teacher leave them alone to do their work.

Or a hospital: The person having the heart attack shouldn't have to wait in line behind the person who wants to have their butt rash checked out by the doctor.

Equity has its place, just not for everything.. I'm not sure what BLM is asking for, so I'm not going to say they're right in this case.


Back to your argument though- could you imagine if people always tried their best no matter what kind of assistance they got? Say the guy with the shoes didn't care that a car picked up the shoeless guy and just kept on going because he could. And say the shoeless guy actually got his ass up and tried to walk as far and as fast as he could with no shoes before he got picked up. That would be one impressive society.

the hospital example is poor, equity says "the people all get equal time and effort" so the guy with the heart attack should get the same wait time and treatment time as the guy with the buttrash.

learning is also poor, that is needs based. equity would be equal amounts of time and instruction for both students, regardless of performance. everybody would need to stay extra and pull Saturday school so they could have equal teacher time. just because a kid is smarter or dumber they should get more resources, that isn't equitable at all.

If there was no car and no expectation of a car, then the shoeless guy could get up and walk if he wanted or stay where he is if he wanted. that is freedom of choice and personal responsibility. neither has to be concerned about the other because neither is forced to pay for or transfer to the other's end goal.
 
Take learning for example: the kid who is struggling with a math concept gets the extra help so they can succeed and the kid who wasn't struggling is happy to have to teacher leave them alone to do their work.

Or a hospital: The person having the heart attack shouldn't have to wait in line behind the person who wants to have their butt rash checked out by the doctor.

so close, but you still swung and missed. some kids/adults, no matter how much they are tutored or given attention, will not get to the same end. Not everyone in a school can finish first. Education is a very poor example of how to use equity. The equality is there, because all kids are able to get the same amount of attention if they want it ,whether there fully need it or not.

your ER example is completely insufficient because it doenst take into account that even if those two people got the same care at the same time, the guy with the heart attack may still die, the guy with the butt rash, will be fine. Medical issues are dealing with so many variables that equality and equity in someone's health situation cannot be applied.

We have tried, kinda, the equality route and nobody is happy. Why not try the equity thing and see if it doesn't kick start some people, it will surely cost less than how we don't do it now.

if you guarantee that ill get to the same place regardless of what i do/have/try, then why would I do, strive to obtain necessities to get me there, or give it a try at all? Because you are going to come along and get me to the end.

Where this all fails is, after the people who bust their ass and try their hardest and work themselves into the ground see that everyone else around them can get to the exact same place they have been WORKING to get to, by being "carried there by government" or some other hypothetical provider, WHY WOULD THEY EVER WORK OR TRY AGAIN?


Thats why communism NEVER WORKS. quickly you run out of money and providers. and everyone is taking, who will provide the goods services for the taking?
 
Last edited:
well, you could argue that creating the road was socialism. we all pay in (well the donor states pay more, but you know, lets not go to the C word just yet) so, one feller has a pair of shoes and the other guy has to go just as far, if he starts the journey, likely as not, he is gonna get blisters or worse which will mean the fire dept will go out and emt and they'll treat him or transport him for more treatment which will have a cost that probably he doesn't have either.

So, by doing it that way, we avoid criticism of becoming 'communists' but it costs a lot more, everyone is worse off and for the price of pair of shoes, we are paying 100X more.

We can't say he got a fair shot, because he was behind when he started.

I think if you asked the guy with no shoes how often some car stopped to give him a ride, he'd laugh and say he hasnt seen a car in years... everyone talks about the cars, nobody has them except people who don't drive on that road.

We have tried, kinda, the equality route and nobody is happy. Why not try the equity thing and see if it doesn't kick start some people, it will surely cost less than how we don't do it now.

it won't cost less, it can never cost less. i'm curious how you label us as "only kinda tried equality"

also, you make a great case for ending federal highway funding
 
so close, but you still swung and missed.

Well hell, care to point out how I missed?


EDIT- thanks for clearing that up. I disagree on your first point about education. Take an english as a second language student for example. It's very possible they are the smartest person in the class, but that won't do shit unless a resource teacher is brought in to work with them on learning english as well. Yes, everyone may not finish in the same spot, but they all are getting a fair chance by acknowledging that some have greater or lessor needs that are created by things outside of the classroom.

I do agree that my second example was hastily created and does gloss over a lot of the complexities of healthcare, but then again it's not like life is just walking down a road with or without shoes either. :flipoff2:
 
Last edited:
so close, but you still swung and missed.



if you guarantee that ill get to the same place regardless of what i do/have/try, then why would I do, strive to obtain necessities to get me there, or give it a try at all? Because you are going to come along and get me to the end.

Where this all fails is, after the people who bust their ass and try their hardest and work themselves into the ground see that everyone else around them can get to the exact same place they have been WORKING to get to, by being "carried there by government" or some other hypothetical provider, WHY WOULD THEY EVER WORK OR TRY AGAIN?


Thats why communism NEVER WORKS. quickly you run out of money and providers. and everyone is on the take.


You have worked hard for what you've got. (you said so, and I believe you.) I have worked hard to get what I have. I come from humble beginnings and I've done okay. We won't lose anything in this effort and we stand to gain.

When I think of myself, I, effectively, retired at 51, but then took a job that I wanted to do, not had to, wanted to, because I'm one of those guys who has had a job since I was a kid. I threw papers, my grandpa had a truck farm, and so on. I've always worked and I've always believed that I was put here to work, provide, help out. I'll probably have some kind of a job until I die.

A lot of people I know are like that. If they aren't working, they are volunteering, tinkering in the shop, fixing stuff etc. No program is gonna change that.

My wife works with foster kids, she usually has 35 kids at a time that she is working with to help them not grow up to be disasters. Believe me, lots of them ARE disasters when she gets them. Over the past 5 years, I've been kind of studying them. The average number of missteps, mistakes, fuckups, that her kids go through before they start to figure shit out and fly right---> 14.

at least 14 times, they lose their bike or laptop or stuff gets stolen or they are in fights or drugs or jail or other bad stuff. But, after that threshold, they seem to catch on, get steady work, graduate high school, some go to college... It is encouraging how many do fine and go on to lead productive lives.

The money spent on those kids saves us down the road. They end up with a decent life and we end up with decent citizens and the nation is stronger and better. That isn't 'communism'.

It doesn't rob or redistribute wealth in some kind of a grab, it says, 'that is a human being who deserves a shot'.

I completely understand the argument of 'the slippery slope' and that if we start with highways pretty soon we're russia... but, I don't live in the theoretical. I see the actual value in investing our resources into people and helping them become good, productive citizens.
 
I'm going to break this up because I think your second point could be a compelling discussion and I don't want it to get lost in an argument about word definitions.

the hospital example is poor, equity says "the people all get equal time and effort" so the guy with the heart attack should get the same wait time and treatment time as the guy with the buttrash.

learning is also poor, that is needs based. equity would be equal amounts of time and instruction for both students, regardless of performance. everybody would need to stay extra and pull Saturday school so they could have equal teacher time. just because a kid is smarter or dumber they should get more resources, that isn't equitable at all.

I don't think you're dealing with the same definition of equity that I am. I'm going off of this: "equality can be converted into a mathematical measure in which equal parts are identical in size or number, equity is a more flexible measure allowing for equivalency while not demanding sameness"

So for the school kid example- with equality, everyone gets the same amount of time and help from the teacher. Those that need more than everyone else are screwed. With equity, kids that need more help to learn the lesson get that help. Kids that don't need it don't have as much time spent with them.

My hospital example was waiting room time. Equality would be everyone waits the same amount of time before seeing the doctor. Equity would those that have pressing needs (like a heart attack victim who is about to die) waits a shorter amount of time so they don't die.

If there was no car and no expectation of a car, then the shoeless guy could get up and walk if he wanted or stay where he is if he wanted. that is freedom of choice and personal responsibility. neither has to be concerned about the other because neither is forced to pay for or transfer to the other's end goal.

Yeah, I have no problem with that... except for my one belief that as a nation, if we can elevate those around us, then we also elevate ourselves. It might be a little altruistic, but here goes:

In your above scenario, no one comes to pick the shoeless man up. Say the rest of us pitch in and get this guy some shoes to walk with us. Now we have one more set of helping hands if others need help down the road rather than being down a man, with him still sitting on the pavement a mile behind us. It could be argued that is why charities exist, and in that case only those of us that feel like me donate to the charity and everyone else doesn't because of free will. Either way, that guy is getting some help to allow him to keep up with the rest of us, and no matter where it comes from (be it the state or a private charity), it's still social equity in action.
 
it won't cost less, it can never cost less. i'm curious how you label us as "only kinda tried equality"

also, you make a great case for ending federal highway funding

pair of shoes 25.00

hospital, emt, bandages, transport etc 6000.00
unpaid bill, bill collectors who knows, a huge waste of money and time.
 
You have worked hard for what you've got. (you said so, and I believe you.) I have worked hard to get what I have. I come from humble beginnings and I've done okay. We won't lose anything in this effort and we stand to gain.

When I think of myself, I, effectively, retired at 51, but then took a job that I wanted to do, not had to, wanted to, because I'm one of those guys who has had a job since I was a kid. I threw papers, my grandpa had a truck farm, and so on. I've always worked and I've always believed that I was put here to work, provide, help out. I'll probably have some kind of a job until I die.

A lot of people I know are like that. If they aren't working, they are volunteering, tinkering in the shop, fixing stuff etc. No program is gonna change that.

My wife works with foster kids, she usually has 35 kids at a time that she is working with to help them not grow up to be disasters. Believe me, lots of them ARE disasters when she gets them. Over the past 5 years, I've been kind of studying them. The average number of missteps, mistakes, fuckups, that her kids go through before they start to figure shit out and fly right---> 14.

at least 14 times, they lose their bike or laptop or stuff gets stolen or they are in fights or drugs or jail or other bad stuff. But, after that threshold, they seem to catch on, get steady work, graduate high school, some go to college... It is encouraging how many do fine and go on to lead productive lives.

The money spent on those kids saves us down the road. They end up with a decent life and we end up with decent citizens and the nation is stronger and better. That isn't 'communism'.

It doesn't rob or redistribute wealth in some kind of a grab, it says, 'that is a human being who deserves a shot'.

I completely understand the argument of 'the slippery slope' and that if we start with highways pretty soon we're russia... but, I don't live in the theoretical. I see the actual value in investing our resources into people and helping them become good, productive citizens.

communism, increased regulation, increased taxation and increased reliance on government largess WILL and DOES destroy charity. always has, always will. the charitable work your wife does by choosing to work with high risk youths and provide a great benefit to society? It WILL get worse.

I've got 2 problems with the "this won't effect us" notion at the beginning depending on how you meant/take it.

1) the whole "I've got mine, so it will be fine" is a FUDD gun owner mentality and the exact line that the upper 10% of champaign socialists use to justify their "great goals of utopia with equity and fairness for all" because they KNOW that they can weather the storm. the satisfied will remain generally protected, the insulated will become further entrenched. It absolutely KILLS the people who are trying to grow themselves the same way that you did and many others before under low regulation and high mobility market systems.

2) you have much to lose, the revolution is never ending, it will erode back to you. there is no "enough". the question then becomes how much and how fast will you tolerate it? If you work in an area with a labor shortage and are holding a position "just to stay busy" then ask yourself why? Why are you holding a job that somebody who needs a job could be doing? you could easily maintain 3 hedges for the rest of your life and be busy, then somebody else could keep your desk warm and benefit from getting paid. <- that is a perfectly valid scenario that WILL and IS playing out in your lifetime.

This shit is actively telling people "the only reason you have 14 issues figuring stuff out as a child is because of Racism and White Supremacy. it isn't your fault, but somebody else is Taking your opportunity and Denying it to you. You can NOT succeed on your merits, that is whiteness and evil. That is colonialism and you must stick with your community, minimize yourself and your desires.

That is damaging as fuck, incredibly so. we have thousands and thousands of years of history to back it up. Fuck that. i'm not slippery sloping this stuff to death, there is Zero benefit from the "equity" demand angle. none at all. First generation immigrants to America Wildly outperform native-born multi-generation americans largely because they come to America, even without significant means, with the notion and idea of American exceptionalism. equity says "that's bad" and decades and decades of that messaging is explicitly why domestic American minorities are regularly outperformed by their immigrant minority "peers"
 
pair of shoes 25.00

hospital, emt, bandages, transport etc 6000.00
unpaid bill, bill collectors who knows, a huge waste of money and time.

and that is exactly why "full equity" means nobody gets the hospital and everybody get's cheap as shit shoes.

"in cuba, the national food ration is not enough to live on, but the poorest cannot live without it"
 
and that is exactly why "full equity" means nobody gets the hospital and everybody get's cheap as shit shoes.

"in cuba, the national food ration is not enough to live on, but the poorest cannot live without it"

I don't think anyone here is recommending we go "full equity". Just because BLM is using it as a tool to try and game the system does not mean that the concept of equity is bad. It is a tool, and can be wielded with good results in the right setting.
 
pair of shoes 25.00

hospital, emt, bandages, transport etc 6000.00
unpaid bill, bill collectors who knows, a huge waste of money and time.

You can give a man a pair of shoes, but you can't make him walk.

What we currently have in society is everyone has access to get the proverbial shoes, se choose to Walk, some choose to sit. Your example of equity is that no matter what, they will get to the end of that ten miles.
 
I don't think anyone here is recommending we go "full equity". Just because BLM is using it as a tool to try and game the system does not mean that the concept of equity is bad. It is a tool, and can be wielded with good results in the right setting.

Who gets to decide how to wield equity equally? Are you saying equity should be selective and thus unequal?
 
I'm going to break this up because I think your second point could be a compelling discussion and I don't want it to get lost in an argument about word definitions.



I don't think you're dealing with the same definition of equity that I am. I'm going off of this: "equality can be converted into a mathematical measure in which equal parts are identical in size or number, equity is a more flexible measure allowing for equivalency while not demanding sameness"

So for the school kid example- with equality, everyone gets the same amount of time and help from the teacher. Those that need more than everyone else are screwed. With equity, kids that need more help to learn the lesson get that help. Kids that don't need it don't have as much time spent with them.

My hospital example was waiting room time. Equality would be everyone waits the same amount of time before seeing the doctor. Equity would those that have pressing needs (like a heart attack victim who is about to die) waits a shorter amount of time so they don't die.



Yeah, I have no problem with that... except for my one belief that as a nation, if we can elevate those around us, then we also elevate ourselves. It might be a little altruistic, but here goes:

In your above scenario, no one comes to pick the shoeless man up. Say the rest of us pitch in and get this guy some shoes to walk with us. Now we have one more set of helping hands if others need help down the road rather than being down a man, with him still sitting on the pavement a mile behind us. It could be argued that is why charities exist, and in that case only those of us that feel like me donate to the charity and everyone else doesn't because of free will. Either way, that guy is getting some help to allow him to keep up with the rest of us, and no matter where it comes from (be it the state or a private charity), it's still social equity in action.

alright, I take my definition of Equity from the most vocal and the leading voices of the people who are actively pushing (and profiting) off this agenda. if you want to use your own, that's fine. just so long as you qualify that when you are speaking to people in public about it and be clear that you reject their definition of equity. Hell, that is part of the game regularly played with redefining words and why it makes it so easy to make this bullshit appetizing to "the masses".

For the second part, I have no qualms with altruism and am a large supporter of charities personally.

to say "no matter where it comes from" is THE problem because it matters very much so where it comes from. It is well documented and we all acknowledge that filtering anything through a large and bureaucratic body is the least efficient way to do anything. We do have a few things where we say "this great waste is justified" but the existence of those should not in any way let them off the hook and we should continue to seek to reduce the waste. Choosing that model and expanding it to more things is simply terrible and abusive. always will be, always is.

Free will is always superior to coercion. Always. shit, that used to be a liberal ideal :laughing: but of course, that is why we have terms like "neo-liberal, liberal, classical liberal"

I want people to choose to be good. I want people to choose to help others. I want people to choose to be kind.

the more that I force people, the less capacity they have to make those choices and the greater resistance towards them becomes.
 
I don't think anyone here is recommending we go "full equity". Just because BLM is using it as a tool to try and game the system does not mean that the concept of equity is bad. It is a tool, and can be wielded with good results in the right setting.

BLM is. in a discussion somewhat about what BLM wants and is about vs Antifa, they both seek the same thing.

the concept of coerced equity as a political tool is bad, especially as a federal tool but even as a state tool.
 
Who gets to decide how to wield equity equally? Are you saying equity should be selective and thus unequal?

heh, I chuckled. That was a good one. Equity is just someone giving others a fair shot. Glad's wife helping out foster kids for example, is equity. I don't know if she's working for a state sponsored program or non-profit or what.

Donating to nonprofits and charities that actually help is equity. You decide if you want to donate and trust the organization to distribute to those in need in an equitable way.

People can also vote to have the government spread some of that "equity" around. They take your tax money and you trust whatever mechanism some proposition or new law put in place to help others.

There are lots of ways to do it.

I'm generally a fan of donating to a non-profit that I believe in and writing that off on my taxes rather than giving straight to the government. The one thing I'm always a sucker for(even more so now that I have my own kids), is giving kids a fair chance to start down the right path in life even if their parents are pieces of shit that do nothing to help them. Some of the charities I donate to are supposed to be helping disadvantaged kids with things like after school programs and meals when school isn't in session in the summer. As I get older, I also find myself shooting down anything and everything proposition that increases government spending when I vote, except when it comes to helping out disadvantaged kids get a leg up in school. I'm a sucker for that every time (if it indeed is a program that will work).
 
heh, I chuckled. That was a good one. Equity is just someone giving others a fair shot. Glad's wife helping out foster kids for example, is equity. I don't know if she's working for a state sponsored program or non-profit or what.

Donating to nonprofits and charities that actually help is equity. You decide if you want to donate and trust the organization to distribute to those in need in an equitable way.

People can also vote to have the government spread some of that "equity" around. They take your tax money and you trust whatever mechanism some proposition or new law put in place to help others.

There are lots of ways to do it.

I'm generally a fan of donating to a non-profit that I believe in and writing that off on my taxes rather than giving straight to the government. The one thing I'm always a sucker for(even more so now that I have my own kids), is giving kids a fair chance to start down the right path in life even if their parents are pieces of shit that do nothing to help them. Some of the charities I donate to are supposed to be helping disadvantaged kids with things like after school programs and meals when school isn't in session in the summer. As I get older, I also find myself shooting down anything and everything proposition that increases government spending when I vote, except when it comes to helping out disadvantaged kids get a leg up in school. I'm a sucker for that every time (if it indeed is a program that will work).

again, none of that is (likely) state sponsored "equity"

giving others a fair shot is equality.

donating to charity is a personal choice and equity because it is a financial transaction and a choice for those who participate the whole wheel around.

heck, the loss of itemized deductions for a larger portion of society was/is one of the principle reasons I was/am against the "trump tax cuts"
 
BLM is. in a discussion somewhat about what BLM wants and is about vs Antifa, they both seek the same thing.

the concept of coerced equity as a political tool is bad, especially as a federal tool but even as a state tool.

Agree that coerced equity as a politcal tool is bad at any level of the government. After our discussion I'm not a BLM fan either.. which makes it hard, because I am all about law enforcement treating everyone equally, and I think a lot of people who march in BLM protests probably believe the same way.. So now the challenge becomes, how do we decry police violence and inequality, while at the same time untangling BLM from that mess of well meaning people whose only agenda actual equality?
 
Agree that coerced equity as a politcal tool is bad at any level of the government. After our discussion I'm not a BLM fan either.. which makes it hard, because I am all about law enforcement treating everyone equally, and I think a lot of people who march in BLM protests probably believe the same way.. So now the challenge becomes, how do we decry police violence and inequality, while at the same time untangling BLM from that mess of well meaning people whose only agenda actual equality?

IDK, maybe start by creating a group/movement whose name reflects what you want? EFA - Equality For All? or some shit like that.
 
Agree that coerced equity as a politcal tool is bad at any level of the government. After our discussion I'm not a BLM fan either.. which makes it hard, because I am all about law enforcement treating everyone equally, and I think a lot of people who march in BLM protests probably believe the same way.. So now the challenge becomes, how do we decry police violence and inequality, while at the same time untangling BLM from that mess of well meaning people whose only agenda actual equality?

this is why "the fight" is one for Democrats and Democrat Affiliated People need to take up.

everybody else is instantly dismissed as "racist right winger".

yes, this will get you called a racist. accept that, it isn't reality by any normalized version of the word racism. don't get hung up in the distraction.

It isn't a challenge to decry police violence, we do it all the time. We decry it by decrying it equally. we don't only decry it when it happens to black people and we don't only decry it when it happens to white people. we call it out when it happens everywhere.

a fun one, is to illustrate that the common narrative has actually resulted in lower policing and more danger and more unevenhandedness to "black communities". the same exact study that people reference as proof that cops are racist because as a percentage of the general population black people are more likely to get shot or involved with the police also shows that as a percent of police interactions black people are LESS likely to get shot and are given MORE tolerance from the police, and that underpolicing is significantly more associated with higher levels of local violence than overpolicing.

they will say "that is because of systemic racism and internalized whiteness" and then you acknowledge they are not ready to learn yet, but still keep up the gentle pressure on them. They might come around or they might not, that is on them. When they talk about punitive measures and coercion, then be more forceful in the conversation.

Hell, the easiest way to untangle BLM is to highlight that they are not about equality. they are openly not about equality so it is easy to do. check out pro BLM sources, read pro BLM stanced articles, there are millions of them.
 
IDK, maybe start by creating a group/movement whose name reflects what you want? EFA - Equality For All? or some shit like that.

been tried, why do you think "all lives matter" got labeled racist? because that is the natural response from a non-biased person with no stance who first hears the phrase "black lives matter" - everybody naturally says "well yeah, of course. all lives matter."

and so ALM had to die because it distracts from the cause.
 
The issue is they want evreyone to have a equitable treatment, meanwhile they want to bring other groups down to do it, money wise we have a graduated tax code (not equitable or equity depending what definition we are using today).

I am 100% for evreyone being treated the same in the eyes of the law and having equal access to whatever in life, at the same time I 100% support freedom of association. Penalizing groups in the name of raising others doesn't fix shit and makes the situation worse. Removing freedom of association does the same thing.
 
been tried, why do you think "all lives matter" got labeled racist? because that is the natural response from a non-biased person with no stance who first hears the phrase "black lives matter" - everybody naturally says "well yeah, of course. all lives matter."

and so ALM had to die because it distracts from the cause.

I remember scott horton (awesome libertarian anti war writer, check him out) said BLM fucked up with their naming. They should have named the group "against corrupt cops" or something like that and it would have made thier life easier. He's also going off the original iteration of blm, not BLM incorporoated.
 
well, you could argue that creating the road was socialism. we all pay in (well the donor states pay more, but you know, lets not go to the C word just yet) so, one feller has a pair of shoes and the other guy has to go just as far, if he starts the journey, likely as not, he is gonna get blisters or worse which will mean the fire dept will go out and emt and they'll treat him or transport him for more treatment which will have a cost that probably he doesn't have either.

So, by doing it that way, we avoid criticism of becoming 'communists' but it costs a lot more, everyone is worse off and for the price of pair of shoes, we are paying 100X more.

We can't say he got a fair shot, because he was behind when he started.

I think if you asked the guy with no shoes how often some car stopped to give him a ride, he'd laugh and say he hasnt seen a car in years... everyone talks about the cars, nobody has them except people who don't drive on that road.

We have tried, kinda, the equality route and nobody is happy. Why not try the equity thing and see if it doesn't kick start some people, it will surely cost less than how we don't do it now.

That has got to be the stupidest crock of shit I've read in a long time.

You're quickly becoming the resident retard.
 
again, none of that is (likely) state sponsored "equity"

giving others a fair shot is equality.

donating to charity is a personal choice and equity because it is a financial transaction and a choice for those who participate the whole wheel around.

heck, the loss of itemized deductions for a larger portion of society was/is one of the principle reasons I was/am against the "trump tax cuts"

I'm still not good with your definition of equality vs equity. Honestly, I don't care if BLM uses it a different way, just like hawaiian shirts, or the finger circle game, I'm not letting someone else coop the actual definition (I still resent antifa for calling themselves Anti Fascists as though they're out there doing nothing but good). Do a little googling for the definition of Social Equity and you'll see that my definition is in the majority. I can and will call out others using it improperly.. and I guess going forward I will be clarifying what they mean at the beginning of a discussion.

Giving others a fair shot is equity. Giving others an equal chance is equality.

This will be the last time I beat this dead horse, and I apologize, but it really bothers me.

Let's take the recent hoonicorn vs the world youtube videos as an example. Every. Single. Car. they raced against the hoonicorn had already lost on paper. Some were too heavy, some didn't have awd, some didn't have nearly enough horsepower, etc.

Equality was when they both lined up at the start, and each started at the same time, and had to run the same distance to finish.

Equity was after the first pass or two when the hoonicorn would finish by 4 or 5 car lengths and everyone realized the next few runs were going to be boring because there was no way the other car could possibly win being under powered, too heavy, ect. so they gave the other car the jump, or had them do a rolling start, or gave the other vehicle car lengths, etc. Anything to make the race close, and more exciting. Those shows were actually a great demonstration of equity because not all cars were given the same advantage when it was realized they were behind. Some that were getting smoked off the line had both cars do a rolling start. Some that were closer just got the dig. Some got car lengths, etc. They tailored what advantage each car was given around it's weaknesses.

Now in the real world, yeah, we all know using the government as a means to distribute aid is inefficient and some funding will be wasted.

I would also say that there is a risk with non profits as well. I would offer up the Wounded Warrior project as an example of a 501 that also doesn't get much of the donor money to its intended target. There are plenty of those out there.

Basically, choose your poison.
 
Top Back Refresh