edit: Okay racism did not get fixed, but it's a definite improvement on Jim Crow Laws. And we obviously we need more activism to fight the institutionalized racism that exists today such as the drug war.
edit: Okay racism did not get fixed, but it's a definite improvement on Jim Crow Laws. And we obviously we need more activism to fight the institutionalized racism that exists today such as the drug war.
I.e. Doing the right thing.
> it should start with a list of companies that publicly state that their employees are allowed to protest, even if the company disagrees with them.
The part that is objectionable is the expectation that my company would need to register on a list stating that I respect the rights of my employees. Doing things within your legal rights is the _default_; I reject the act of playing into someone's political "are you with us?" game.
Not everyone who dislikes this behavior is alt right, or rightwing at all. Stop focusing on the scape goat that's easy to dislike.
Gotta hand it to these scumbags, they built a nice tight system.
Don't forget you're lucky you can say such a thing. Many people are desperate for a job.
All the more reason to protest of course!
Mozilla forced Brendan Eich to resign for his off-hours activism. I assume they would be in the database.
The PR crisis was caused by his off-hours activism, but that's only material insofar as its focus on him made it clear that removing him would likely be an effective way to deal with it, and he hadn't found any other.
Asserting your speculations based on outgroup antipathy as facts is a working definition of bigotry. Also a kind of lying in my book. Ta!
Did I miss a memo?
There are more black men under state custody or supervision in the United States today for acts that no sensible person regards as criminal (drugs) than were enslaved in 1850.
I support no special drug regulations or crimes at all (i.e. nothing outside fraud liability), but I am in the tiny minority.
edit: to be clear, I would prefer to eliminate the whole prescription system and FDA regulatory apparatus. I am not just talking about marijuana.
If no sensible person regards them as criminal, they would not be crimes.
Your assertion is that the sentencing/laws are racist. I would assert that crime, itself, is racist. For whatever reason some minorities commit more crimes. Keep in mind, I'm not saying that they do it BECAUSE they are a minority. I am not saying black people are inherently more criminal because they are black, merely that based on demographics a black person is more likely to be a criminal. I do not know why that is (nor do you) and do not make any attempt at explaining it.
More reading on the astonishing and completely demoralising statistics on "missing" black men in society: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/20/upshot/missin...
13th on Netflix also lays out a persuasive point about free labour in prisons benefiting from racism in arrests means we literally still have slavery.
I really like how 13th on Netflix repeated a simple but devastating stat: the US has 5% of the world's population, but it imprisons 25% of the world's prisoners, with 40% of them being black men.
With most of those black prisoners doing free labour while having their wealth, power, and freedom stripped due to their imprisonment, it really doesn't feel any different than it's ever been. It's just hidden from the public now.
Probably not; slaves weren't legally treated as persons and weren't generally incarcerated for crimes as such, and while there was certainly racism against non-slave blacks, I've seen no account of massive disproportionate imprisonment.
Now, slavery itself was a bigger problem than the current disproportionate imprisonment, but also different in kind, not merely degree.
My comment was about black men (ie, adult males) under correctional custody or supervision (ie, probation or parole). I think it's likely that the ratio is close to the 1850 number - by 1850 there were quite a lot of free black men.
But that's not really the issue - I'm more inclined to take issue with
> trying to paint our present situation as almost as bad as where we were just 150 years ago doesn't really make sense
I think the prison system is very, very bad. A horrifically ugly mark on our history. As bad as slavery, and as impactful on black families in many places. Life as a black family in a radically abolitionist state - say, Kansas - was almost surely less disrupted by slavery in 1850 than it is by the prison state today.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
What's unfortunate now is how many people believe our incredibly segregated neighbourhood and work environments are the way they are either by choice or circumstance rather than by deliberate planning and design to oppress and mitigate political and economic power.
Btw as surprising as it may be to people here, Hillary Clinton was a choice candidate for PIC. They gave her at least $250k in lobbying just last year. Lately she claimed she will refund it, but it was a token gesture so far and she donate about $10k to a women's prison charity. She was also a big proponent of the infamous "three strikes law" is which filled the prisons with various repeat offenders no matter how minor their crimes.
So one hand we have proven active lobbying, proven "tough on crime" stance and strong support for "three strikes" law, on the other hand, stocks generally shoot up after election.
But even looking at stocks, GEO is up a bit higher than what it was last year. CXW is just back to where it was last year this time. Did you see other stocks there? Those are the two I know about.
US Steel for example went from 7-9 range to 30. Now that's a solid difference. Google was 650 now in 800s. Is Google also supporting Trump... who knows, fire up the presses (really doubt it).
When she made these comments, prison stocks fell nearly 40%.
How does it look when you adjust for other factors, namely poverty?
I think the real message is even more troubling. "Don't protest because it probably won't do anything". Since the late 60's when did protests work as a an effective tactic in US? We've had anti-war protests for Iraq and Afghanistan. We've had Occupy Wall Street, we've had protests against Trump. Have they advanced the cause? I am afraid not.
I think as a tactic to effect social or other change protesting in US has lost its efficiency. That's very troubling indeed.
Occupy didn't result in direct action or changes. However, it popularized the notion of the One Percent vs. Ninety-Nine Percent, and got people to think about class in a nation very averse to even acknowledging the existence of economic classes. Probably had a positive impact in terms of helping Obama get re-elected, since Obama was lucky enough to get a seemingly clueless one-percenter as an opponent. Occupy had laid the groundwork which helped attacks against Romney.
The Trump protests have already had an effect. First of all, it's motivated normally non-politically active people into action. The sheer size of the crowds at the first protest, the Women's March, has had a galvanizing effect. People at the marches were encouraged to sign up to various groups. Those groups, like Indivisible or Planned Parenthood, keep things going by organizing at the local level and by giving them easy things to do each day or each week. There's a direct line between the protests and the fact almost every congressperson has an overwhelming volume of calls. And the seeds are planted not only for future protests but also for future direct action.
The administration has already backed down on some issues due to the protests. I think it's arguable the anti-LGBT executive order was scrapped at the last minute because of the sheer size of the instant protests over the immigration ban. If that many people would show up over an immigration order which didn't affect anyone they knew, then it would be reasonable to predict the streets would be absolutely flooded at any attempt to renew persecution of LGBT people.
As an added bonus, the protests are clearly unnerving Trump. I have no idea what the long term effect will be, but at the moment it's causing his team to make some errors.
That was my point. It had as goals to limit the influence of corporations on politics, more balanced distribution of income, more and better jobs, bank reforms.
I can see maybe the secondary effects of electing Obama, so agree with that. Interestingly did Obama do much in regard to those issues. There was student dept forgiveness thing, that might be a claim. ACA might be another one. But what about others...can't think of any right off the bat.
> The sheer size of the crowds at the first protest, the Women's March, has had a galvanizing effect.
It was a beautiful thing indeed. It was nice to see others and have that solidarity. If it gets people more involved politically that's even better.
> I think it's arguable the anti-LGBT executive order was scrapped at the last minute because of the sheer size of the instant protests over the immigration ban.
I am behind on my news, what was that anti-LGBT executive order? This is the first time I heard about it.
More than anything you must fight apathy. Most people are busy and don't have time to pay attention to politics or get involved. Humans are also social creatures; knowing that you aren't the only one - that you aren't some oddball - makes a huge difference.
At some point people start to question their pre-conceived narrative. They stop wanting the status quo. The revolution begins when people's minds are changed. Visible action comes later. Sometimes that "later" is a decade or two when a new generation takes power and decides to do things differently than the generation before. Sometimes that "later" is next week and involves a literal revolution as we think of it.
But you can't say protest doesn't matter. It is the first step in changing hearts and minds.
Well I was trying to say that it doesn't work as it used to compared to the Civil Right Movement, Vietnam War, Women's Liberation. Something is off. Maybe it is just my perception. We saw what happened in Ukraine, Arab Spring and other countries. There it seems to work. Here it seems less so.
> Humans are also social creatures; knowing that you aren't the only one - that you aren't some oddball - makes a huge difference.
That's a good point. I hadn't considered it enough. Just knowing you are not alone is great motivator.
> They stop wanting the status quo.
Interestingly, I think that is what changed the election completely. Both Sanders and Trump supporters, especially their energy and enthusiasm, despite the media blackouts and lack of support from major donors like banks and even whole countries, have shown that people stopped wanting the status quo. Sadly the DNC never stopped to re-evaluate how come a relatively unknown old white male, seemed to have gotten so many votes.
> The revolution begins when people's minds are changed. Visible action comes later.
Well voting produces a visible change not that much later, in historic terms it is rather instantaneous.
> Sometimes that "later" is a decade or two when a new generation takes power and decides to do things differently than the generation before.
Wonder if there is a chance now to form a new party. What happened to Sander's supporters. They were all mostly young, very enthusiastic, it seems like now should be the time to give them a voice and harness that energy.
Also, I think it planted the seed in a way. There were huge protests around the start of the Iraq War, but those failed in part because they were mostly ignored by the media. Occupy found a way to get the media to pay attention, and used social media outlets as a way to engage people whether or not they showed up in person. The Women's March probably would have been a success if Occupy hadn't occurred, but I think Occupy did a lot in terms of making people in the US think protesting was viable in terms of getting attention, and thus the Women's March, and all the following protests, had a leg up because of it.
Tahrir Square / Arab Spring should also get some credit too, since they created the framework Occupy followed.
Here's a quick link about the LGBT executive order and how it failed:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/ivanka-trump-jared-kus...
I can't prove it, but I suspect the rapid response of protesters played a factor in shelving the order, based on the large numbers who hit the streets and airports shortly after the immigration ban was announced. The LGBT EO would have produced an even larger response.
At any rate, if you haven't already looked at the Women's March or Indivisible's or Planned Parenthood's sites or Facebook pages, I highly recommend you do. I'm quite impressed and heartened at the ways they're keeping people engaged. Little daily actions that anyone can do such as calling your Senator. Turning the protest highs into concrete action.
The Women's March was just more of the poison posing as a cure. Yes, they had a big showing, but like Occupy before it, it's entirely coopted by progressive side issues and the professional rabble rousers who need them to persist for their meal ticket. Just look at what's happening to the science march.
Indeed, people are already barred from work opportunities by the virtue of having any criminal background, including arrest records. This is acknowledged as a growing problem in our society.
Aren't arrest records for dismissed charges sealed? Innocent until proven guilty makes punishing an employee for charges unseemly. Punishing for convictions, however, strikes me as fine.
I do get the reason people think this way.
However, making it impossible to find a job after doing your time isn't a good thing for society. It just encourages more crime.
I am just saying that I think there is a reasonable discussion to be had around businesses discriminating based on conviction (or outstanding warrants). I find it highly offensive to my democratic principles for the government to encourage businesses to pursue those tending to their charges or warrants prior to (potential) conviction.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=non+violent+protestors+arre...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/12/amy-goodman-...
i know from experience and talking directly with the arresting officers, and my assigned defense attorney, and the judge that dropped mine and a number of other identical charges in the room
> A protester at the NC General Assembly invites her arresting officer to Christmas dinner. She was one of several arrested while protesting a power grab by Republican legislators during a surprise special session.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-p...
Cops arrest and assault people engaging in peaceful, legal, constitutionally protected protest all the fucking time.
(And, yes, I'm saying that both of these things are a bad idea since tone tends to be lost particularly in online political discussion.)
There have been numerous incidents of assault, arson, vandalism, looting, and such during protests for at least a couple years now, starting with BLM protests long before Trump and the election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_unrest
Some prominent activists have even defended these acts. For example, Deeray McKesson called In Defense of Looting "absolute required reading".
The comment you replied to didn't mention anything about the inauguration, the Women's March, Trump, or the election.
I'd say the Women's March was the first kind, and, for example, the recent Berkeley-Milo protest was the second.
And I think the question in the quote is appropriate. Surely we don't intend the First Amendment to protect people the UC Chancellor reportedly described as: "more than 100 armed people in masks and dark uniforms who used paramilitary tactics to engage in violent destructive behavior intended to shut the event down."
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/opinion/violence-at-be...
Second -- 'Ferguson' was a community reacting to a state sponsored murder -- not a 'BLM protest'. They weren't out there for BLM, they were out there because Ferguson cops enacted violence on their community.
Finally, calling 'in defense of looting' required reading is not endorsing or defending looting. You aren't a Nazi because you read Mein Kampf. It's an interesting take and I'm sure Deray has a nuanced opinion on the issue -- but nah you're just going to keep mischaracterizing people and movements to fit your world view.
The grand jury did not find enough evidence to charge the officer and even CNN said "Some [witnesses] admitted lying. Others changed their stories under questioning."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/14/justice/ferguson-witnesses-cre...
You've clearly decided the facts of the case based not on evidence but on your own world view so kindly spare me spurious accusations of doing so.
Second, I'm not characterizing an entire movement, I'm merely referencing the events.
I'm not merely referring to Ferguson, that's simply one example of many, so I used a general term. You may prefer other terms but I suspect that you know what I'm referring to when I use the term "BLM protests".
Third, while Mein Kampf may be required reading for its historical importance, do tell, why would In Defense of Looting be required reading if not for the position it advocates?
...
So this is being downvoted without response - why?
Isn't this an interesting idea worth thinking about? "Looting is extremely dangerous to the rich (and most white people) because it reveals, with an immediacy that has to be moralized away, that the idea of private property is just that: an idea, a tenuous and contingent structure of consent, backed up by the lethal force of the state."
I don't think looting is a good idea, but I do think reading that essay is. Possibly Deeray McKesson felt the same way.
"It is in solidarity with these latter protesters–along with those who loot–and against politicians and de-escalators everywhere that I offer this critique"
As someone who would like to see de-escalation before this all ends in civil war, the author has declared (correctly, I think) themselves against me.
It is, more than a mere defense of looting, an attack on capitalism and "white supremacy" (by which the author means American society in general, not extremist Neo-Nazis).
I'm as aware as anyone of the failures and injustices of capitalism, but merely taking what one wants isn't a sustainable solution.
Right. Those are some of the reasons it's plausible that someone would recommend it with a more complex intention than "yay, looting."
Perhaps one could even find sources that present a fair criticism of the flaws of other economic systems and the injustices perpetrated by other societies alongside the critique of capitalism and American history.
When a prominent activist like DeRay Mckesson recommends an article like In Defense of Looting, it's likely to encourage looting by some of his followers.
Domestic terrorism is being normalized by a fifth column.
You'll get far more arrests when you have someone win the Super Bowl. As such, it's a slippery slope, and people should not be permitted to win the Super Bowl.
Note that there is a huge difference between protestors and anarchists wearing all black with black face masks breaking windows, setting fires, and pepper spraying people. Those people are not protestors. They go with a very specific intention and it's definitely not to further the cause of the protestors.
If anyone shows me an example of the US government in action, I'll show how the people, laws, policies, or circumstances involved were responsible for government-caused violence, oppression, and lies. I really don't understand how you're more willing to condemn activists for the bits of random acts of violence without a word toward our government that promotes and legalises the violence they use on people all over the world. Already in the last month Trump and Obama tag teamed to kill nearly an entire innocent family, including children: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-o...
As for your challenge, here's Portland Oregon police confirming one of the largest marches in the history of the most liberal city in America was "100% peaceful": https://twitter.com/PortlandPolice/status/822958708980260864
> If you get to conflate the handful of anarchists breaking windows and setting fires the night before with the 3m of us who marched peacefully during the Women's March, then we get to conflate all Trump voters with the literal nazis - as in "Sieg Heil", nazi salute, call themselves "nazis" - that voted for him and celebrated his victory. It's only fair.
Hmm, did the op call the Women's March violent? I didn't see them doing it. So how did "Sieg Heil" even enter into this conversation?
I see people playing too fast and too loose with those terms. Both of my grandfathers drove the real "Nazis" all the way to Berlin and witnessed unimaginable horrors done by them. One was wounded had a part of his lung blow off by them. My mom told me stories of what happened with Jewish children in the village (for example daughter of the village school teacher) who was raped then had her arms cut off and buried in the back of their garden by "Nazis". You calling Trump voters "Nazis" is slap in the face to anyone who experienced the "Nazis".
You should be more careful about using those terms. You are also not advancing the cause you seem to advance because every time you write or say those words in reference to Trump voters you are probably end making more future Trump voters.
Yes, nazis did vote for Trump in the form of the American Nazi Party and others... literal "Sieg Heil", white power, "cleanse" others, nazi salute awful types. They were a very small fraction of his supporters. It's just as dumb to conflate those horrible excuses for humanity with the other millions who voted for Trump (and would be horrified by those nazi saluters) as it is to conflate the anarchists breaking windows and setting fires with the other millions who peacefully protested (and are horrified by the anarchists).
What is really interesting to see is political cartoons from the days of the MLK led Civil Rights protests. The arguments against the civil rights movement are exactly the same as the ones against BLM now. People thought the protesters were "too violent" and were a bunch of thugs destroying their own neighborhoods and holding back the more respectable black people and their agenda. The same arguments are used today to discredit the work of Black Lives Matter.
After all, didn't MLK say that a riot is the language of the unheard?