|>> || >>70423 |
>I dunno I felt like the whole "black people want to get vengeance" was a bit of a strawman too, misrepresenting a whole movement as if that's what they want. Saying it's about vengeance is like someone is hitting you and you ask them to stop and they say "DONT STOOP TO REVENGE BRAH" and then hit them even harder.It's a strawman because it assumes everyone who points out a problem with the current situation is assuming the only motive is revenge. Though while we're on the subject demanding compensation from one arbitrarily defined identity because of the actions of a subset of its members to another arbitrarily defined identity due to the oppression of some of its members is bullshit and most importantly inconsistent (such claims, e.g. 'reparations for slavery', focus only on one specific historical injustice without demanding compensation for all others which is anyway rather impractical).
>I think yes that abolishing wealth etc is a great lofty goal and would solve issues, changing power structures but I think that's a slower undertaking, perhaps addressing the symptoms while we work on that is easier? If I am ill and it gives me a headache taking some paracetamol to reduce that is not unwise, especially as it may help me sleep. Realistically those people in power are going to be much slower to change the system which gives them power than to tweak it a bit. So chipping at them may be easier. Seriously, if you live in the US or UK your "democratic" system is utter horseshit and everyone knows but it won't change because it has to be changed by the people the broken system puts in place. Why would Trump or Boris oppose a system which gives them total power with a minority vote? Instead they'll further change borders and stop black people voting (and yes they both do that) to entrench.An undirected and violent attempt to treat the symptom will not result in any long term change: after the horrific injustices that always happen you'll just end up back in the same state with a different set of people in charge based on some other factor that's outside of their control. Instead of 'they were born to rich parents and privately educated' you get 'they were poor and black and fought in the revolution' and surprise surprise that leads to very similar abuse of position because neither one is a good qualification for ruling.
>Speaking of, just before this... well look up Windrush. that's all black people getting fucked by white people. One specific group of black people (Caribbean) being fucked over by the government, not all of which are white (not even all of the Conservatives are white) and which are anyway a vanishingly small subset of the entire white population. On top of which while it was an utterly incompetent and poorly thought out bit of legislation the intent was not to target them for being black as much as to target undocumented immigrants in general. The mistake that was made was assuming that people legally resident in the UK (regardless of skin colour) have any documentation: as a nation the UK is anti documentation, anti-ID card and so on and that's a great thing which has been fought for repeatedly (it's why we don't have to show ID when we vote, for example).
>I think that what you are advocating equates to "it's not perfect so lets leave them to die" and I think that's not good enough.That is not what I said at all. It's all well and good to say 'those who don't deserve power/wealth should turn it over' but first you have to come up with a proper definition of those who don't deserve it, a fair process for punishment and turning it over and most worryingly who it's turned over to. To not do this and just aimlessly attack groups based on gut feeling is ineffective in the long term since you'll hit plenty of innocents, miss a fair few of the guilty and just end up with the same situation again.
>Freedom of speach the ability to be drowned out by the loudest simplest liesFreedom of speech, properly limited (i.e. no shouting fire in a crowded building), is far less open to abuse than limited speech (as usual, who limits the speech?). The correct solution to the problem of lies is to educate the population to think critically and think for themselves, then they can sort through the shit for themselves.
>Societal change doesn't have to be full revolution and somehow things do keep improving. We are going the right way but we do need big pushes sometimes to keep us on track. The industrial revolution was full of shit but then the labour party and unions came in. We made the NHS.The NHS was mostly a result of WW2 and a white paper passed during the war, not the labour party or any specific political movement afterwards. Gradual change is good though and there's certainly room for pushing the government wherever possible.
>Also some of them work. France is better off without it's monarchy. France is better off now than if it still had an absolute monarchy, sure, but the French revolution was a huge net negative at the time. It led to many massacres (many not of the nobility), at least two distinct waves of political killings and arbitrary detention (after the killings of the upper class, these were of other revolutionaries and working class people), destruction of huge amounts of cultural heritage and the eventual replacement of the monarchy with a new, stronger, one anyway (Napoleon) which then led to the Napoleonic Wars and millions of deaths in their own right. After all of this France is still one of the least stable western European nations with its last successful military coup in 1958 and its last unsuccessful one in 1961. This compares unfavourably to European nations that gradually moved towards constitutional monarchy instead.
And the French Revolution, just like the German and American Revolutions, is a great example of unintended consequences since originally their goals (or the goals of the masses) were nowhere near 'remove the monarchy' but movements without proper systems or rule get hijacked by radical voices who simply accuse their opponents of being the wrong identity/spies/revisionists and turn the ruleless power/terror of the movement against their opponents instead of the original target. Once you open up the ability to, without due process, destroy a statue, imprison someone, kill someone, burn a book, remove their right to a trial, remove the presumption of innocence until proven guilty etc then you can't put that genie back in the bottle and after the obvious targets are gone people will start using it against unobvious targets without any checks or balances.
It's very easy to point to the most egregious examples of abuse and say 'this is bad and they should be punished and replaced' but once you start trying to move beyond those obvious cases and try and replace the system it more often than not results in arbitrary punishment (or killing) of anyone who appears to be similar in background and the installation of a new set of shitty leaders anyway. Usually this is combined with the fallacy that anyone who was oppressed under the old system is somehow deserving of special treatment/leadership roles in the new system.