War Room Lounge v146: Federal Goon used "Bludgeon"! But it's not that effective...

[Fawlty]

@Trotsky not sure if you've seen this account

That account is great.

 

[My Spot]

Peace and love, brother... Peace and love.

 

[Strychnine]

Bless your heart brother.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Oh, no. Of course not.


I'm trying to help @AgonyandIrony raise the level of the humour around here ;-)

totally. I know. I mean you would have to be a desperate mod to horribly misconstrue that statement.

 

[Trotsky]

To anyone looking for a pretty confounding movie, check out How Would You Know on Netflix.

It's a romantic comedy that somehow, inexplicably, makes Reese Witherspoon relatable and Paul Rudd insufferable. It's definitely the worst role I've ever seen Rudd in. It's pretty awful.

 

[Limbo Pete]

All of this made sense to me up until about the 1930s. I mean, West Virginia miners were shooting it out with cops up into the 20s. But since then, there have been enough gains in democracy that armed combat just isn't a weapon (no pun) against the oppressive state.

Trump's threat to send federal troops to Chicago might make me rethink this. But look at the response to his hysteria about Portland: the Oregon mayor let him know she won't crack down the way his dictator wannabe ass wants.

Even in the event of federal troops in Chicago and New York, I really can't picture what that oppression will look like. Mass arrests? Curfews only for the "bad areas"? I can't imagine that being met with anything other than mass outrage from all Democrats and even some Republicans.

I think the next step is a ramp up in arrests, followed by wrangling in the courts over categorizing them in such a way that merges the "terrorist" rhetoric with actual law.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

So you're a white-Polynesian-Jewish-Buddhist cop?

Ever think about going gay to spice up your identity a little more?

EDIT: Also Jewish heritage + Buddhist practice = Buddhish?

Jewbu

 

[My Spot]

Bless your heart brother.

 

[Strychnine]

Bless your heart brother.

 

[Trotsky]

All of this made sense to me up until about the 1930s. I mean, West Virginia miners were shooting it out with cops up into the 20s. But since then, there have been enough gains in democracy that armed combat just isn't a weapon (no pun) against the oppressive state.

Trump's threat to send federal troops to Chicago might make me rethink this. But look at the response to his hysteria about Portland: the Oregon mayor let him know she won't crack down the way his dictator wannabe ass wants.

Even in the event of federal troops in Chicago and New York, I really can't picture what that oppression will look like. Mass arrests? Curfews only for the "bad areas"? I can't imagine that being met with anything other than mass outrage from all Democrats and even some Republicans.

I think this outlook, while completely sensible and understandable, is constrained by what you just said: our being in a period of unprecedented political peace, which has been aided by perpetual economic growth and completely unsustainable depletion of resources. And even during that peacetime, the country has amassed an impressive set of brutally racially discriminatory policies that have looted minority communities and channeled millions of black Americans into prisons. Yet, in 2020, in a period in which the economy is still expanding on the back of arguably unsustainable deficit economics and Americans are holding fast to lifestyles of consumption that are many times greater than what is ecologically sustainable for the average world citizen, there is absolutely no sign that reactionary forces in American government are going to soften and willingly cede wealth to nonwhite lower classes and there is likewise no sign that the major parties are going to return to a state of compromise - or even anything short of knowingly sabotaging the country in order to stoke division for political gains.

In short, and to skip a few connecting arguments, I think that modern America is currently in a game of musical chairs. And, knowing that government will always serve capital and holders of wealth for the foreseeable future, I would rather that when the music stops not all of the country's private arms be concentrated among members of the country's most reactionary parts.

 

[Strychnine]

I think the next step is a ramp up in arrests, followed by wrangling in the courts over categorizing them in such a way that merges the "terrorist" rhetoric with actual law.

This is worth a watch / listen if you've got eight minutes.

 

[My Spot]

Bless your heart brother.

 

[Strychnine]

God bless you brother.

 

[My Spot]

God bless you brother.

 

[Strychnine]

So, what's your take on the President's briefing today? Would you care to discuss the salient points?

 

[My Spot]

So, what's your take on the President's briefing today. Would you care to discuss the salient points?

 

[Strychnine]

Well, I tried...^

 

[JDragon]

This plays into how race issues don’t nearly fit on the party spectrum cause you have at least three groups:

1. Racists- self explanatory. Race is very important and the result is segregation, persecution, etc to improve society

2. “Woke” (Not the name I’d assign but since the video went that route)- Race is very important and as a result, we have to constantly be conscious of race in many to all interactions that occur in society and as a result, society will improve

3. Post-race (again, I don’t have good names for 2 or 3)- Race isn’t important to focus on and the closer we get to ignoring it, the better society as a whole will become

1 & 2 have the same premise but different intentions. 2 & 3 have the same intentions but different premises and I think the distinctions aren’t nearly as acknowledged as they should be in politics.

The importance is with 2 & 3 because they both agree 1 isn’t good. However, they both have their own internal conflict in reaching their goal.
2 is more likely to find racial injustices when they occur or at least faster than 3 would. However, 2 is stuck in a mindset that will always be racially oriented and never truly get past that construct
3 is more likely to maintain a lifestyle that doesn’t care or focus on race like 2 but that makes 3 far more blind to when a racial injustice could occur because of group 1
2 & 3 are more understandable depending on where you think society currently is. If you think group 1 is still very much empowered, you are more likely to take the group 2 approach imo. If you think society has addressed a lot of its racism and needs to enter a new phase, you would lean towards 2. The groups are disbursed differently through each party but most people just lump 2&3 into non racists or 1&2 as racists (that video) or 1&3 as racists (silence is violence). Approach matters a lot
here.

Great post. The issue is definitely with 2 and 3.

2 will usually consider 3 to be privileged and self-interested. I.e. while having the same long-term goal, accusing them of secretly benefitting from any actions initiated by 1 (also historically).

I fit that third category quite well, btw. I admit it is a convenient place to be in, of course, as a middle class white male.

 

[all caps]

 

[Lead]

I agree that's broadly true, though different racial theories also exist between and within those groups.

The key distinctions I tend to make are between race as a biological fact, as a social fact, or as a blanket falsity. Your Group 1 would definitely see race as a biological fact, but some of the language of the corporate anti-racists I've been critical of recently uses very similar phrasing despite describing race in terms of social facts. Unqualified language about "whiteness" inevitably lending certain qualities, for example, is very biological (although it's always explained as a consequence of social forces, which doesn't follow) compared to a whiteness that *probably leads to a certain kind of experience,* which is coherent. The important element of the latter is of course the potential for change.

I respect the opposition to racial "colorblindness" insofar as it means acknowledging the effects of past discrimination with the intention of dissolving the category in the future, but I do think it's dangerous to instead flip the category on its head and try to make it a positive one. A bit of 2 and 3 I suppose is the best way forward.

The thing is, a mix of 2 & 3 is hard to strike at an individual level. At a macro level, I do think it’s good groups of 2 & 3 exist to assist when necessary. And yes, there are definitely subgroups within each of them. I just don’t think it’s taken even to the three category level enough and is kept at two which makes things look far pessimistic (racists vs non racists) instead of fairly optimistic (racists vs those directly combating racial injustice and those choosing to not engage in racial injustice)

Like I said, there’s downsides they have but the intentions are very similar and there are far more on that front than group 1.