The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: Lotje1000
User Name: Lotje1000
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Gender: None Specified
Joined: Monday, November 3, 2014
Last Visit: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 3:49:10 AM
Number of Posts: 1,150
[0.12% of all post / 0.56 posts per day]
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: “Wrapped in the Flag and Holding a Bible”
Posted: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 3:48:52 AM
I think it's quite telling that in his speech he only mentioned protecting the second amendment: "I am mobilising all available federal resources civilian and military to stop the rioting and looting to end the destruction and arson and to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans including your Second Amendment rights."

Nothing about the first amendment to protect the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press and the freedom to peaceably assemble - I've seen videos and read accounts of people who were sitting in their garden when the police teargassed them. I've seen the video of CNN reporters getting arrested for calmly talking to the police. I've seen the pictures and read the accounts of people being shot in the head with a rubber bullet while out shopping, not protesting.

There's no empathy there.
Topic: Being repeated across the US. (Right wing extremists fomenting violence)
Posted: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 3:11:58 AM
FounDit wrote:
This made me laugh. It's funny. I watch the protesters on TV and see signs for Black Lives Matter, and No lives Matter Until Black Lives Matter. I see Antifa symbols and signs, but what I don't see are signs for White Power, or White Privilege, or KKK, or any signs that indicate a far-right presence at all, but we're told they are the ones causing all the problems. But it's typical of the Far Left to riot, burn, and destroy, then blame it on the Right.

You are making some confusing leaps in logic here. First of all, you seem to be equating white power/privilege and the KKK with both the far-right and the right in general. That's a little insulting to your average right-leaning American. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion, but it's hardly based in fact. After all, the protestors are protesting against the systemic racism in society (including white power, white privilege and the KKK), but not necessarily the right in general. Systemic racism is a societal problem and doesn't stop at party lines.

Secondly, I don't know why you'd expect there to be signs for white power/privilege or the KKK at a protest against systemic racism. Seems a little out of place for them.

Thirdly, there are theories that extremists are joining the protests and turning them more violent to sabotage the nature and message of the protests. If these alleged extremists are indeed present and part of any white power/privilege or KKK movement (and thus 'causing all the problems'), they'd hardly broadcast themselves with signs.

By the by, you have yet to provide evidence for your claims in the thread on Black Lives Matter and you've made some claims here as well that could do with some facts to back them up.
Your claims:
- African Americans behave more lawlessly.
- White police officers are more cautious about injuring or killing a suspect than officers of colour.
- White Power, White Privilege, KKK, Far-right and the Right wing party are the ones causing all the problems.
- The left typically riot, burn, and destroy, then blame it on the Right.
Topic: Is Black Lives Matter a racist organization?
Posted: Sunday, May 31, 2020 11:31:52 AM
FounDit wrote:
Hmm, well, your misunderstanding and misinterpretation of every point I made clearly indicate you are unwilling, or unable, to engage on this topic with rational thought. So I'll leave it with you.

I see, I guess you're sticking to making "silly declarations without evidence" then.
Topic: Is Black Lives Matter a racist organization?
Posted: Saturday, May 30, 2020 4:12:58 AM
FounDit wrote:

And yet all the groups I mentioned seek to work for precisely the goals of a particular "race", be it black or Hispanic, or Asian. So they seem to think it's all about race.

Racism, defined by TFD:
"1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race."

Note how it doesn't say "talking about race" or "bringing up issues about race".

FounDit wrote:
Exactly "how" did I stifle their right to focus on crimes committed against them? Your arguments would be better is they actually had a basis in fact, rather than accusations without merit.

Because you call the organization that focuses on crimes committed against them racist and provide no facts to support your argument. Because you don't listen to people when they explain what the organization stands for and instead insist on your unfounded opinion. Because you continue to spread misinformation.

FounDit wrote:
You limit racism to superiority, but that is a specious argument, or perhaps, you aren't sufficiently aware of that. There are many ways racism may be practiced.

It's a definition as used by TFD itself. There are indeed many ways racism can be practiced, but the root of racism remains the same. Like how arguing against Black Lives Matter because African Americans should be treated differently because they are inherently more lawless - that's one way for racism to show itself.
On the other hand, starting an organization that reminds people of systemic violence against African Americans - that's not racism as it claims no superiority and doesn't discriminate against others.

FounDit wrote:
Ah, here we go; the old patronizing argument that they can't get ahead in society because they were "slaves in the past". Do you not realize how patronizing that is? How insulting that should be? You're saying they cant' do anything on their own because "someone white" is holding them back. They aren't smart enough, or creative enough to do for themselves now that Civil Rights have been enacted, now that special privileges and quotas have been established for them, now that exemptions have been created for them at every rung of society.

Ah the old 'let's forget about our history because it didn't affect me so it's definitely not going to affect other people' argument. Slavery is still at the root of society and at a discriminating mindset that has grown over the centuries. Sadly, that means people can be incredibly talented minds but still end up nowhere because systemic racism gets in the way of the chances they would otherwise take.

Special privileges, quotas and exemptions are a great first step, but ultimately useless if people ignore the existence of systemic racism.

FounDit wrote:
You also insult every black person who has done well through education and personal effort, such as Dr. Ben Carson, the head of our government agency of Housing and Urban Development, Candice Owens, a black woman who is critical of Black Lives Matters and the NAACP, Denzel Washington, and United States Senator Tim Scott, just to name a few.

You have a twisted sense of logic if by recounting African Americans who do well, you hope to ignore all the others who can't get there because of discrimination and violence. Denzel Washington's success does not negate the disproportionate amount of African Americans who suffer at the hands of the police. (Nor, by the way, does Denzel Washington's success change the fact that African Americans represent a minority of the leading roles in Hollywood films.)

FounDit wrote:
You insult every black person when you cling to the idea that they aren't capable because they were "slave in the past" as you put it, and you insult every white person by believing they are responsible for that.

Read up. You are the only one calling them not capable here.

FounDit wrote:
That is as silly an idea as holding you responsible if someone from Belgium punches me in the nose. Should I then blame you? Is it your fault, or that of your family? Should I demand justice from you for something someone else did?

What is silly is equating systemic racism with being punched in the nose. Come back to me when a Belgian person has punched all of your ancestors in the nose, then we'll talk demanding justice.

FounDit wrote:
Not here it isn't. Facts show that white officers actually are more cautious about injuring or killing a suspect that officers of color. And if you have facts to show otherwise, simply present them. Don't just make silly declarations without evidence.

Speaking of evidence, where are all the facts to support your statements so far?

But sure, I'll provide some facts to support my points: "Black people were 24% of those killed despite being only 13% of the population." and other statistics. "Over the life course, about 1 in every 1,000 black men can expect to be killed by police. [...]Black women and men and American Indian and Alaska Native women and men are significantly more likely than white women and men to be killed by police. Latino men are also more likely to be killed by police than are white men." "Overall, black Americans are several times more likely to be killed in police shootings than white Americans are."

Now kindly show me the facts to support your claims:
- African Americans behave more lawlessly.
- White police officers are more cautious about injuring or killing a suspect than officers of colour.

FounDit wrote:
You're hiding behind a dictionary definition, and that's not what the reality on the streets are. So it does "cut it".

Racism is clearly defined by multiple dictionaries and official sources. I'm afraid your 'reality on the streets' argument wouldn't hold up in court.
Oh, while you're at it, kindly provide us with your definition of racism (a.k.a. the 'reality on the streets').

FounDit wrote:
And you are a liar. You know nothing about my relationships with people of color. You can't simply declare me a racist without evidence. And my statements of their deaths because of their behavior is borne our by that facts that police simply do not kill black people because of their skin color. That is a silly and ridiculous assertion. If that were true, there would be no black people left in the country.

I have given you evidence, FounDit. You've claimed African Americans behave more lawlessly. That's a racist comment.
And you keep providing supporting evidence:
- Claiming that 'being punched in the face by a Belgian' is a equivalent to suffering through a history of slavery and systemic racism. That's evidence of a lack of empathy often displayed by racists.
- Claiming that because an organization mentions race, they're racist. But you mention race but don't think of yourself as racist. That's evidence of a cognitive dissonance often displayed by racists.
- Making up your own definition of racism.
- Claiming a vague but undefined relationship with people of colour. (Dangerously close to 'I can't be racist, I know a black person'.)
- Citing a rich/successful African American as a reason why systemic racism doesn't exist.
- Claiming you don't see colour.
- Insisting on black-on-black crime to distract from the topic at hand.
- Demanding proof for well-documented issues.

FounDit wrote:
If that were true, why do they then call themselves "Black Lives Matter" rather than "All Lives Matter"? They don't because what both of you say isn't true. They are focused only on Black lives. And it isn't the "far right" that says this, it is the Organization itself that says it.

Honestly, Foundit, read up. I've explained this one already and so has Blaidd-Drwg. But, you know, feel free to provide evidence for your claims. Otherwise, by your own admission, you are just making 'silly declarations without evidence.'
Topic: Is Black Lives Matter a racist organization?
Posted: Friday, May 29, 2020 4:53:25 AM
Just for further clarification, believing All Lives Matter and aiming for a world in which people are colourblind is not a problem.
Insisting All Lives Matter to dismiss a movement like Black Lives Matter and dismissing the concerns of African Americans because people should be colourblind is a problem and extremely unhelpful because it stops people from examining the issues that exist right now.

To put it as simply as I can: If a person is dying of thirst right now, telling them that you believe in a world in which everyone has access to water is pointless. Instead, we should give that person water and start looking into the reason why that person has no access to water in the first place. By insisting on All Lives Matter in the face of an organization pointing out injustice, you're not just being unhelpful. You're maintaining injustice while justifying your own inaction to them. You're making it all about you.
Topic: Is Black Lives Matter a racist organization?
Posted: Friday, May 29, 2020 3:16:06 AM
FounDit wrote:
Of course, it is. Any organization that focuses its efforts towards people strictly on the basis of race should be considered racist.

That is not the definition of racism.

FounDit wrote:
And yet, the Black Lives Matter Organization takes offense whenever it is mentioned that all lives matter. They only want to focus on Black lives, as you have done here.

Of course. Because people like you say 'all lives matter' to stifle their right to focus on the crimes committed against them specifically. They only want to focus on African American lives because that is their right to. It's not racist to do that, contrary to what you believe, because the organization doesn't believe that African Americans are superior over others. It's trying to be counted in the 'All' of 'All lives matter'.

FounDit wrote:
Blacks are treated differently because they act differently, speak differently, have created a different sub-culture for themselves. The want to be seen as different, else they wouldn't have created such distinctions for themselves. From political organizations to Black Entertainment TV (BET), blacks set themselves apart from the rest of society. Hispanics, Asians, and other sub-groups do also, but usually not to such a degree as blacks have done. Our society has gone to great lengths over the last 60 years to accommodate different ethnic groups and reduce the friction between them, while others exacerbate those differences for political gain. This is one such group.

1. Establishing their own culture a normal reaction in a society that has used them as slaves in the past, segregated them from 'normal' society and continues to discriminate against them to the point of getting them killed. As already said by Blaidd-Drwg: "So it seems that the organization's mission is to fight the institutionalized segregation of blacks and minorities so they can enjoy the same access to resources and the same opportunities to move up the economic ladder that most white neighbourhoods currently enjoy."
2. Acting differently, speaking differently and creating a different subculture for yourself does not mean you should be discriminated against, believed to be inferior or have an abnormally high chance of getting killed by the cops or some random people while out jogging.

FounDit wrote:
It is extremely rare that someone is killed for the color of their skin. Most killings take place out of anger, jealousy, money, or gang-related activity. But racists always want to make it about color, as was just stated.

It is very common that someone is killed for the color of their skin.

FounDit wrote:
Because they behave more lawlessly. All the crime statistics prove that. It has nothing to do with skin color. It is behavior that drives the response. Black people who commit no crimes call the police when crimes are being committed precisely because they don't like it either.

Look, FounDit, racism is literally defined as 'The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.' That's what you're doing here. Saying 'it's not the skin colour' isn't going to cut it.

Honestly, FounDit, you're racist. You're afraid of a community in the US that is taking back their lives and wanting to be treated as human beings. You're claiming all lives matter, but when African American people want to be part of the 'All', you claim they're being racist. You blame their deaths and discrimination on their own behaviour and completely ignore the responsibility the US has had in their history and continues to have in their discrimination and deaths.

Black Lives Matter is an organization that wants to give African Americans the human rights they've been denied. It wants them to be part of the 'All' in All Lives Matter. Blaidd-Drwg summarized it best: "[The far right] want you to think the phrase means "Only Black Lives Matter" when in fact it means "Black Lives Matter Too"." And no, FounDit, that is not just what we say, that is also what they say.
Topic: “The “Karen” in Chief”
Posted: Friday, May 29, 2020 2:28:32 AM
In answer to the first question: No, it's not kosher and it speaks of an insecure president that he has to resort to this type of strategy. Moreover, it also shows that he's a hypocrite: He complains loudly when people make (founded and unfounded) claims against him and tweets that they're meddling with the elections. Yet when he does it, it's 'freedom of speech'. Can't have it both ways. Intentional or not, it certainly serves to divide the nation (and public opinion globally about him) even more.

As for your second question: Yes. They've built and evolved a platform that gives an incredible amount of power to specific influential people - not just influencers but now also political leaders. Now, politics is a weird tangled net where it's easy to adopt plausible deniability and assume you're not responsible for the vote you cast or the people you support. In their mind, perhaps the rise in violence against women or POC after a racist and sexist president gets elected and spills his bile on Twitter, doesn't mean Twitter has to be directly responsible - freedom of speech and all that. Then, when he later tweets about the Chinese virus and that is followed by a flare up of discrimination and violence against Asian Americans, plausible deniability becomes more difficult to maintain. And finally, when the president keeps tweeting misinformation, confusing people on how to act during the pandemic and giving out medical suggestions, suddenly Twitter feels more directly responsible for the deaths of everyone who took the president's tweets to heart.

The factcheck mark is a nice move but also a bit of a cop-out as no one who supports the president already is going to read that. Personally, I feel he should have been kicked off twitter a long time ago because he already broke the terms and conditions many times over. People have gotten banned from Twitter for far less compared to his harassment of people and fuelling of racism and hatred. The only silver lining I can think of is that people have had a good close-up look of what the president is like uncensored so nobody can act like they had no idea.

Now, Facebook has an easy time judging Twitter. It's not the president's facebook posts that make it into every news article so the two platforms don't tackle the same issue. We already know Facebook thinks it shouldn't be the arbiter of truth: It literally can't afford to be as it doesn't have enough manpower to filter out the horrid messages on its platform - even if it's obvious terrorism and abuse. But regardless, Twitter isn't assuming it's the arbiter of truth, Twitter is posting a link to people who are the arbiter of truth. That way it can dodge the responsibility of having to actually do something like kick presidents off their platform.
Topic: Is the hard shut-down a bad idea?
Posted: Thursday, May 28, 2020 2:51:54 AM
UV does not kill the virus. Going outside puts you at risk of infecting other people and getting infected with any other diseases that are going round as you already have a weakened immune system because of corona. Then you inevitably go back home and infect your family members anyway.

However, if you stay indoors, you don't infect anyone outside and they don't infect you. And if you happen to be ill but you use proper isolating measures, your family could also be safe while living in the same house as you until you recover.

And no, FounDit, you're only guilty of perpetuating the politicization you complain about.
Topic: Is Black Lives Matter a racist organization?
Posted: Thursday, May 28, 2020 2:38:15 AM
Black lives matter is not a racist organization. It does not believe African Americans are superior to others and it does not set out to discriminate. It is an organization that highlights that within "all lives matter", black lives should matter - a fact that seems to be forgotten given the disproportionate number of African Americans who suffer at the hands of police. The organization wants to highlight that African Americans are treated differently by society at large, by people in charge, by the police force. The fact that these people are predominantly white, does not make the organization racist against white people.

I see a lot of confusion on how empathy for a cause works and just want to highlight some things:
- While the idea of being colourblind is a noble one, it also completely misses the point. We'd love for the colour of one's skin not to matter, but right now it still does. People saying that they are colourblind does not solve the issue for people who are still being treated poorly/killed because of the colour of their skin.
- "All lives matter": No one is disputing this. To have empathy for one cause does not mean you want to put down other causes.
- "The majority of black people are killed by black people": I don't know if this is a fact. But this does nothing about the fact that African Americans are still being treated differently by the police.
Topic: Is the hard shut-down a bad idea?
Posted: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 2:07:20 AM
FounDit wrote:

The death toll is slightly higher than a normal flu year, but most of that was because people with the virus were forced into close contact with others who were not infected (restricting people to their homes, infecting everyone in the family, and the forced moving of sick patients into nursing homes with older people who were susceptible).

I can't wrap my head around this mindset. Where do you think people will go if there is no lockdown? In your mind, will they somehow never go home to infect their family members? If the death toll is slightly higher because people were locked in their homes where they could infect their family - that's the whole point! Because then they're locked in their homes and can ONLY infect their family. Who would in turn stay home and would not be able to infect anyone.

FounDit wrote:
But as everything is now politicized, even this virus is being used for political gain. I've no doubt it will be used in the coming Presidential election, and to make best use of that weapon, it will help to continue the lock down as long as possible, so as to weaken the economy and blame the President. That's why so many Democrat leaders are calling for an extension of the shut down. Those who claim to "care" so much, really do care -- about power, and the ability to use it for control.

Ah the irony of complaining it's politicised and in the same breath, politicising the issue.