• Current Events, Politics
    & Science

    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • CEPS Moderators: cduggles | Deru | mal3volent
  • Bluelight HOT THREADS
  • Let's Welcome Our NEW MEMBERS!

Social Justice Black Lives Matter Discussion Thread

birdup.snaildown

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
1,944
Location
Somewhere
People are deleting my posts now and not giving me a straight answer if a double standard is being applied. When it first started happening I had my doubts, but now I am totally certain. There is no trial process on this website.

If the legal system worked like this - and lawyers or prosecuting officers didn't have to justify, let alone explain, why someone is guilty - we would live in a dictatorship. @Xorkoth said democracy was under threat. Not on this website: because it doesn't exist here.

Democracy is under threat because of the left dictating. Free speech is democracy. Those annoying AF protestors (on either side) that's part of the downside of the democratic process... but you have to take the good with the bad.

Donald Trump is (if anything) proves that democracy works.

Positions of extreme power don't exist like they used to.

The president can't do shit. He can be a little baby. He can lie. He can (with all of his might as the most powerful man in the world) encourage a minor upsurgence that is easily squashed.

All this talk about people amassing armies and weaponry in the US is bullshit. With Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US government clearly made a statement. They showed everyone exactly how far they needed to go to prove they could stand up to the Nazis.

If you abduct and fuck someone's kid, they will chop your head off and mount it on the wall. Those are the rules of the jungle. Hitler was a fucking super villain. He is closer to Satan than man. If you side with that sort of guy, you're guilty by association... You're not guilty by association because you give a key note speech. That's not what the Japanese did.

I love Japan and I love Germany. I lived in Japan and a significant part of my ancestry is German. I don't hold any grudges on race, but that bombing needed to occur.

Eventually - no matter how passive and good you try to be - you can still become an animal. Republicans are liars. Democrats like to focus on that, because maybe it means they tell the truth.

There is no trial process with left vs right. You guys still aren't willing to just look at the numbers and discuss them. If I'm wrong, let's do it and just take a break from the jokes and the deflections for a little while.

The only difference between a polite conversation and and a rude one is pretence.
 

dalpat077

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
1,465
After my post of yesterday I decided to stay the fuck out of here. And have calmed down to an extent. And again find myself having to make an excuse i.e. well don't let the media influence you nor start generalizing because of the actions and attitude of only a handful of individuals. So I'll leave it at that for now. Until the next time.

One observation though and simply food for thought:

I mentioned this last year on one of the political threads although I wasn't quite as direct about it as I'm about to be. So it was ignored at the time by all.

I would love to see the tone of this thread comes around 2040. Take a look at any study that you like on the topic of demographics and future projections of said demographics as they pertain to America. On the current trajectory (and when I say "current" I'm talking about studies done before the new Administration was even remotely considered as being an issue and with the new policies in place) there will be no such thing as a white America comes 2040 (if not sooner now). As to how many of these white supremacists being referenced here are actually aware of this and use it to justify their actions or legitimize their ideologies and beliefs I do not know. This doesn't necessarily mean, by the way, that it'll be a black America. But white Americans, as we/you know them, will be a (just another) minority. Now whether that's a good thing or a bad thing for America: who knows. But it's happening. BLM and any other such organization or no.
 

birdup.snaildown

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
1,944
Location
Somewhere
dalpat077 said:
there will be no such thing as a white America comes 2040

It would be much better if there were white Americans and black Americans and they reproduced together to create grey Americans. A lot of black people in the US are white. People are just people. Race identification is crazier (but basically the same thing) as gender ID. You are what you are. If you're half black, that doesn't mean you're more than half black.
 

dalpat077

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
1,465
It would be much better if there were white Americans and black Americans and they reproduced together to create grey Americans. A lot of black people in the US are white. People are just people. Race identification is crazier (but basically the same thing) as gender ID. You are what you are. If you're half black, that doesn't mean you're more than half black.
I see you're on a roll this morning! 🤣

Don't quote me out of context.

That said: not sure how I'd react to your statement if I were American. Guess we're both going to find out when they awake this morning. Must be nice in New Zealand and Australia though huh! 🤣 Yeah, I know, low blow! 🤣 Mind you: if I were you I'd start rallying the troops together and somehow start moving that island FAR from Australia (you know: what with current state of diplomacy between Australia and the Chinese).

Whatever. I was simply making a point or observation about the demographics and whether it may or may not be a factor in the apparent rise of white supremacy which has been referenced on this thread countless times. It wouldn't be the first time in history where a certain demographic has felt the need to fight for their identity and to preserve their own culture and traditions for fear of being wiped out or forced to conform or forced into a corner. Some people actually do like who they are. That doesn't mean that they can like who they are and be who they are at the expense of others either. But that shouldn't make them targets either. And hey: could even be fear that comes into play here.

And I'm sorry. Not you, nor any of these entities that our psychonaut fraternity are apparently in touch with from time to time (where's my fucking Lotto numbers by the way), nor God himself (making a wild assumption on this one), is going to convince me that people are people and we're all the same and that's the way it should be. That doesn't mean I shouldn't respect others that are different from me nor that I'm better than others that are different from me. But different we are.

Something that's not come up on this thread and which I've found rather amusing: you do know that there was some huge outcry not too long ago about some or the other entrance examinations (cannot recall the exact details) requiring higher scores (or could even have been different tests) for Asians simply because they're apparently more intelligent and more tech. savvy than the rest of us. What do you call that or make of that one? I for the record don't disagree at all. So: we're different. What's the problem with that? I'll look up the details on this if I ABSOLUTELY MUST but, as I recall, it wasn't the Asians that were bitching and squealing but some or the other liberal that picked up on this and decided it wasn't fair. I'll retract this publicly (obviously) if I have my wires crossed and if called on it.
 

cduggles

⚥ Male Model Maven ⚥ Sr. Moderator: CEPS, Words
Staff member
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
18,436
Location
A chromatically corrected world
I think you missed the point. I asked him to define racist, not provide an example of one. It would be like if you asked me to define communist and I posted a picture of some guy with a hammer and sickle tattoo. That doesn't define communist because it doesn't provide any criteria for inclusion or exclusion.

Or if you were a grammar teacher and I asked you to define noun and you pulled out your phone and showed me a picture of a table. Table is a noun but it doesn't define noun.

Again, I have to assume you understand the difference between an example a definition.
I think a picture is worth a thousand words. I also think you’d be a great grammar teacher.
 

Xorkoth

🎨 ARTministrator 🎨
Staff member
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
53,351
Location
In the mountains
Forgive me if I don't take your word for that.

Well, seeing as how I have lived my whole life in America, exposed to American news and media and culture, and you haven't, I'm not too bothered by your statement here. In the 90s, the PC movement was strong, and although people were picking less on trivial bullshit like they are now (no one was trying to censor Looney Tunes for example), there wasn't nearly as powerful of a voice pushing in the opposite direction, either. There was no national platform for white nationalism. I'm quite sure it existed but was kept much quieter and silenced quickly. it's gotten way more extreme on both sides.
 

deficiT

Sr. Moderator: DC, TDS, NSADD
Staff member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
4,680
Location
The Belly of The Beast
Democracy is under threat because of the left dictating. Free speech is democracy. Those annoying AF protestors (on either side) that's part of the downside of the democratic process... but you have to take the good with the bad.
If it wasn't for pesky protestors, we wouldn't have half of the labor and voting rights that we have in this country over the years. Maybe you don't agree with direct action or are annoyed by it, but you live in a world that has evolved and benefited from it, and protest is a key part of a functioning democracy. Especially in a representative democracy, where the regular person might not even have real access to their representative. There is no "bad" element to protest, it's just how democracy works.

The left isn't "dictating" anything. Society is evolving, and deciding that certain things are hurtful and not worth being said. You are not looking for freedom of speech, you are looking for freedom from accountability for the things you say.


I love Japan and I love Germany. I lived in Japan and a significant part of my ancestry is German. I don't hold any grudges on race, but that bombing needed to occur.

Are you talking about the atomic bomb? Kinda whack if so. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people did not have to die just so the American Empire could flex nuts to the commies.
 

birdup.snaildown

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
1,944
Location
Somewhere
I didn't say I disagreed with the legal right to protest.

The bombs were fucked up.
Joining the Nazis: also fucked up.

me said:
Those annoying AF protestors (on either side) that's part of the downside of the democratic process...

The fact that people can scream whatever the fuck they want in the street is annoying but necessary.
 

deficiT

Sr. Moderator: DC, TDS, NSADD
Staff member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
4,680
Location
The Belly of The Beast
I didn't say I disagreed with the legal right to protest.

The bombs were fucked up.
Joining the Nazis: also fucked up.



The fact that people can scream whatever the fuck they want in the street is annoying but necessary.
I get where you're coming from, didn't mean to infer you disagreed with it in my comment.
 

burn out

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
7,576
Location
Michigan
I think a picture is worth a thousand words. I also think you’d be a great grammar teacher.

A picture can be worth a lot more than a thousand words, that still doesn't make it a definition. I asked this question in response to the claim that all racists are Trump supporters. If we go by that then Richard Spencer isn't racist since he endorsed Biden. The reason this is important is because without any clarification or consensus about what is meant by certain words or concepts it's very difficult for any meaningful discussion to take place. I understand you're most likely not interested in meaningful discussion but I still think this is worth pointing out.
 

dalpat077

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
1,465
The fact that people can scream whatever the fuck they want in the street is annoying but necessary.
Good one! 🇷🇺

You mean like this:

 
Last edited:

TheLoveBandit

Co-Owner
Joined
Feb 22, 2000
Messages
36,454
Location
Getting to the point ...
Google "Oakland 59000" and see what you get regarding their new basic income plan to give $500/mo to families earning under $59,000 annually.

Oakland to give low-income residents $500 a month, no ...

The mayor of Oakland, California, on Tuesday announced a privately funded program that will give low-income families of color in the city $500 per month with no rules on how they can spend it.

The program is the latest experiment with a "guaranteed income," the idea that giving low-income individuals a regular, monthly stipend helps ease the stresses of poverty and results in better health and upward economic mobility.

The idea isn't new, but it's having a revival across the U.S. after some mayors launched smaller scale pilot programs across the country in a coordinated campaign to convince Congress to adopt a national guaranteed income program.

The first program launched in 2019 in Stockton, California, led by former Mayor Michael Tubbs. Tubbs, who later founded the group Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, expects six other cities to launch similar programs by this summer.

An analysis of the first year of the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED) found that compared to a control group, residents who received regular payments experienced less income volatility, secured more full-time employment, were better parents and partners, and even saw improvements in their health and overall well-being.

The "Oakland Resilient Families" program has so far raised $6.75 million from private donors including Blue Meridian Partners, a national philanthropy group. To be eligible, individuals must have at least one child under the age 18 and an income that is at or below 50% of the area median income — about $59,000 per year for a family of three.

Half the spots are reserved for people who earn less than 138% of the federal poverty level, or about $30,000 per year for a family of three. Participants will be randomly selected from a pool of applicants who meet the eligibility requirements.

Local people of color only​

Oakland's project is significant because it is one of the largest efforts in the U.S. so far, targeting up to 600 families. And it is the first program to limit participation strictly to Black, Indigenous and people of color communities.
The reason: White households in Oakland on average make about three times as much annually than black households, according to the Oakland Equity Index. It's also a nod to the legacy of the Black Panther Party, the political movement that was founded in Oakland in the 1960s.


Oakland to give low-income Black, Indigenous families $500 ...



Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf announced this week that the city will launch a guaranteed income project to give hundreds of Black and Indigenous families and people of color $500 per month for 18 months.
The project's payments will be unconditional, and recipients may spend the money however they choose.
...
The project targets groups with the city's greatest wealth disparities, per the Oakland Equality Index, which reveals the median income for White households in Oakland to be nearly three times that of Black households.

"The poverty we all witness today is not a personal failure, it is a systems failure," Schaaf said in a statement. "Guaranteed income is one of the most promising tools for systems change, racial equity and economic mobility we've seen in decades."

Guaranteed income is different from Universal Basic Income (UBI), which would provide enough income to meet everyone's basic needs.

Instead, guaranteed income is only meant to supplement other wages and programs for low-income residents, helping to build the "income floor" on which people in poverty can begin to build financially secure lives.

Who is eligible?​

To qualify for the Oakland Resilient Families payments, families must have at least one child under 18. Their income must be at or below the area's median income: around $59,000 for a family of three.

But half of the available spots will be reserved for very low-income families -- those who earn below 138% of the federal poverty level -- or, about $30,000 per year for a family of three.

An online, multilingual screening form will be released later this spring and summer, after which families will be chosen at random to receive the payments. The program is also open to undocumented and/or unsheltered families. Because recipients will not be required to work for the payments, the money is not considered taxable income.


Oakland, California, will exclude white families living in ...


City of Oakland Mayor is branded racist for giving families of color $500 a month if they earn under $59,000 with no rules on how they spend it - but offering poor white families nothing​

  • Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf announced race-based program to give families of color $500 monthly checks
  • Half of the $500 grants will be to families earning under $30,000, in the predominantly 'BIPOC' East Oakland area
  • The program, funded by wealthy private donors, explicitly excludes poor white families
  • An estimated 10,000 of Oakland's 435,000 population are white residents who live in poverty, defined by earning less than $12,880
  • Many of the wealthy white city residents are 'young transplants', who move to the Bay Area for high paying jobs in tech and finance

A program to give $500 monthly checks to low-income families of color in Oakland, California, has been criticized for explicitly excluding the 10,000 white residents living in poverty in the city.

The lottery system, funded by private philanthropists, will see the no-strings-attached checks go to households with an annual income of less than $59,000 if they have at least one child. The other half of the $500 checks will go to those earning under $30,000.

According to data from an Oakland Equity Indicators Report, cited by officials to justify favoring people of color, white households earn about three times that of African-American ones.

The same report states around 8 per cent of the city's white residents, approximately 10,000 people, live in poverty.




This caught my eye (via right lean media) because of excluding whites. Reading it further, I'm a bit torn - it is an experiment (18mo only only 600 families, 50% to families earning under $30k), so in that sense it is a targeted group and local gov't wants to see how it goes. But I really can't see their justification to exclude whites. They say the average income for whites is 3x that of other races, but articles also state 8% of the city's white residents live in poverty. Why not let the experiment also include those white families (it's a lottery system on who gets the $500 for the 18mo). Use it to see if the poor whites to any better or worse in the program, leverage the opportunity to truly run an experiment with those IN NEED.

I'm generally against the welfare approach, but for an experiment I'd like to see how it goes. I am firmly against using race as a criteria for eligibility, to me that is both pandering AND racist by definition. Do it based on NEED.
 

bmf666

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 24, 2021
Messages
115
Criminals. It’s infuriating as someone that served 20 years in the military this is the first time I’ve actually been ashamed of this country. I grew up patriotic and my dad was career military as well and it’s sad to see his reaction to all the crap going on I know he feels the same way. BLM and antifa where rioting and destroying crap for 8 months prior to the capital riots and politicians didn’t say crap. The right riots one time and all hell brakes loose. Seeing old white couples being cornered by entitled privileged young black people that believe they’re victims and see them bully them into doing crap makes my blood boil.
 

birdup.snaildown

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
1,944
Location
Somewhere
TheLoveBandit said:

Local people of color only​

Oakland's project is significant because it is one of the largest efforts in the U.S. so far, targeting up to 600 families. And it is the first program to limit participation strictly to Black, Indigenous and people of color communities.

As Jess Lee Peterson says: Amazin'
 

Burnt Offerings

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
5,317
Location
USA
I am firmly against using race as a criteria for eligibility, to me that is both pandering AND racist by definition. Do it based on NEED.

Yeah I'm against using race as any sort of qualifying factor as well. Like you said, it should be based on a person's economic standing, not their race. From what I've heard the UBI in Stockton had some promising results, and the modest UBI ("permanent fund") in my homestate of AK is very popular here, so its worthy of exploration and experimentation IMO.
 

bmf666

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 24, 2021
Messages
115
If they do ubi then that’s it, it replaces all the other benifits people abuse. I seriously think this countries going the wrong direction and is to concerned with helping the wrong people. There’s an insane amount of opportunities in this country where i seriously have zero sympathy for people that can’t support themselves. It’s insane that if I want to make 200k I literally have to make 400k because of taxes. I’m an electrician now and there people that don’t speak English making $20+ an hour because they can’t find amaricans worth a crap. My union actually has a program for people of color where they can get in without passing the acceptance test or doing the interview and everyone always laughs how every single one of them flunks out. Guess when you’re raised getting crap for free even a good job seems bad
 
Top