I’m french-canadian; gladly endorsing my eeevil soshulism and julienne potatoes.
1 Like
This doesn’t really make him look any better. When you start saying stuff like “we’re all slaves to the Feds, in a sense…” then it just proves that you have little knowledge or empathy for the plight of people who lived under actual slavery. You know—the generations-long institution where people were bought, sold, beaten, raped, denied all forms of education, forced to give up their children to be traded as livestock, and denied all legal rights whatsoever.
A white guy who makes statements like “I know what it’s like to be a slave, because I pay taxes!” comes across as an ignorant jerk at best.
11 Likes
What porn are you watching that involves fisting union organisers?
There’s bound to be an Equity rep does porn somewhere.
That’s the real question. It’s easy to get caught up pedantry because the actual problem is so unfathomable. To quote another man talking about “the Negro”:
We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “For Whites Only”. We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote.
Look at that checklist from 51 years ago and 98 years after the legal end of slavery. It’s a shame how few we can check off. The US has almost entirely done away with those “for whites only” signs, and I’m sure the majority of hotels and motels would happily take your money regardless of the colour of the your skin.
But while legally skin colour does not determine voting rights in Mississippi anymore, in reality a combination of laws that prevent felons from voting and unevenly enforced laws that target young black men mean that black people are prevented from voting unjustly in many parts of the US. Police brutality isn’t limited to black Americans, but they certainly are given much more than their fair share (not that any share of that is fair). And while the US has a unique history of black oppression, these problems aren’t unique to the US at all.
Equality has been a radical idea through all of human history, and I have trouble guessing with any confidence that it won’t continue to be a radical idea for a long time now.
4 Likes
I completely agree. It’s just that in this guy’s case, “ignorant jerk” could be a significant upgrade from what many are thinking of him right now.
1 Like
See also: that fellow at CPAC last year…
1 Like
If your question wasn’t rhetorical: because equality is STILL a radical idea.
2 Likes
It was meant to be rhetorical, but my inability to proofread meant I didn’t see that it could be read as an actual question.
2 Likes
I think rule 34 guarantees it.
OH hey - I didn’t see this earlier but it’s an excellent point.
I know people whose attitudes were like, “Oh the Occupy is just a bunch of whiny socialist hippies looking for a free hand out from the government.” Their stereotyping of the people involved in the movement completely discredited the overall issue that big banks and the like are fucking us over.
It seems like everything is politicized into “teams” and neatly labeled so one doesn’t need to think - they just root for their colors. And while there are definitely people squarely on “sides”, most of us are somewhere in the middle, but are more apt to support a particular team rather than analyze something on it’s own merits and make a decision based on that.
And who benefits from this? The people in power. They would rather us continue to combat one another rather than push aside some differences and unite on a common cause.
1 Like
Meh…he’s an older guy, so it’s probably a safe assumption that he’d have some racist tendencies, though sometimes folks from older generations can fool you. I didn’t know that it was going to be to that extent.
I really don’t understand how anyone can reasonably defend Bundy.
I can understand why people are concerned about government oppression and loss of freedoms, but I don’t see how any of that relates to Bundy’s case. He refused to pay BLM fees for 20 years, fees that plenty of other ranchers pay. He had several court cases and lost them all. He publicly threatened to shoot anyone who came to collect on those fees. There’s no government over-reach here-- they were justified in showing up armed to get what he legally owes. And if “loss of freedom” means that you can’t just go out and build a fence and claim land as your own like they did 200 years ago, well. . . get used to it; the world ain’t as huge and up for grabs like it used to be.
As for his racist comments. . . I note he poses it as a question: “would they be better off as slaves?” But this is a cop out, because even asking the question means you haven’t actually thought about what slavery means. Here’s a question: would Cliven Bundy be better off if he were taken by force from his home and forced to work in a foreign land for no wages in harsh conditions and under the threat of beatings? Because that’s the reality of slavery, not the romantic view that Bundy seems to have of black families working side-by-side while singing spirituals on a bucolic farm.
4 Likes
No, fuck that. It’s a different world now. He knows better.
He’s a stupid fucking asshole, but he knows better.
1 Like
Pretty sure I didn’t say that at any point, but it’s interesting that you’d project in that way. My point was that I think that people who gather to protest for any reason have a duty to actively resist overwhelming shows of force by government agencies that would seek to control or limit their ability to protest.
Thanks for bringing your fresh Ad Hominem to the discussion though. I’m sure we haven’t seen enough of that already.
I don’t know the name for that particular type of leap of logic, but it’s untenable.
“I’m not surprised it’s raining today” ≠ “I knew it was going to rain today.”
No, actually, you did, very specifically. And now you’re pulling the tired old snark out with “thanks for the ad hominem bla bla bla” that BoingBoing folks love to copy-paste on message boards, so it’s clear you’re not listening. Okay! Seeya!
Your point about the alternate tactic of garnishing his finances is exactly what I’m getting at. When I say “militarized government AGENCIES” I don’t mean “the man” in the nebulous anti-gov sense of the phrase. I mean that an agency or agencies who had the option of using smarter tactics like financial adjudication chose instead to tool up in tactical gear and try to make a splashy, headline-grabbing play for attention.
I don’t think that the BLM is wrong in pursuing Bundy, but I think that they went about it in the worst way possible. When you’re looking for a quick and peaceful resolution you don’t start by closing the roads to public traffic and positioning sharpshooters on a nearby hill. Any government agency that fears popular opposition and potential documentation of their actions enough to set up a “First Amendment Zone” miles away from their activity should be resisted loudly and decisively.
Frankly I have very little in common with Bundy or the people who chose to participate on his behalf, but my opposition to the erosion of free speech puts me on their side of the line on at least one issue.
Read my words, and see if you can follow along. I don’t agree with Bundy on the BLM issue, but I’m strongly opposed to any government agency that puts on tactical gear and tries to limit people’s ability to exercise their right to free speech. To the point where I support the people protesting even if I don’t agree with them on the issue that they’re protesting.
It’s not “tired old snark” if it’s true. You’re making a very deliberate attempt to recast the intent of my statement, with all the low-information spite that you can muster. My point is that I believe that freedom of speech should be applied equally to everyone, even people who use this right to make ignorant, spiteful public statements that don’t necessarily contribute to the dialog in a constructive way. Including you.
I agree with what you’re saying now. Unfortunately, that’s not at all what you said before. I’m glad you’ve clarified your original position.
