(06-23-2020 09:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:51 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:18 AM)allerretour Wrote:  I'd be pretty much done with Rice if they change the name or take down the statue (not that they'd miss my paltry contributions). I think I'd become anti-Rice if they put a separate black house on campus.

What is the black house that is part of the discussion? I haven't seen a good explanation floating around (but admittedly, I could have missed it). Is it a dorm/residential college? Or is it more like the Women's Resource Center - a permanent, physical space on campus?

Both. They're demanding a separate off-campus dorm or residential college exclusively for African-Americans as well as a building/center for African-Americans to congregate and discuss issues. Yes, this is going back to segregation, which runs counter to their mission.

I support BLM and agree with many of their requests, however, on several facebook and twitter Rice-related pages they are attacking anyone who doesn't agree with them 100%, or even those who politely raise concerns over one or two of their "demands" or the tone of their letter to the administration. Instead, they're quick to label such supportive alums as "racist" and "sexist" (since the majority of the co-signers are women). They also fail to recognize the very significant progress that has been made over the past 10 years, and the number of recent initiatives put in place to address diversity and promote increased African-American awareness and resources. Certainly, there are areas (e.g., hiring, admissions) in which further improvement is needed, but I'm not sure their aggressive, antagonistic approach is the most effective way of affecting further change. Having said that, they are certainly getting heard, and this is long overdue.

so they are demanding "separate but equal"? I guess next will be separate dorms for women. Back to the future.

I honestly don't think we know nearly enough about the black house to universally condemn it (or applaud it).

As others have mentioned, Stanford has something like this in place. But there is an important caveat that I just learned (well, i really just learned about these houses in totality):

Quote:Stanford’s four ethnic-themed dorms — Ujamaa, Casa Zapata, Okada, and Muwekma-Tah-Ruk — have been part of campus life since the 1970s. These dorms depict themselves as living spaces that encourage residents to explore the culture and heritage of the group associated with it. They are not exclusive: at least 50% of the residents must not belong to the ethnic group the house represents.

But even with the requirement to have a mixed ethnicity dorm, it's not a clearly winning idea (see the rest of the linked article).

https://stanfordreview.org/inclusion-or-...with%20it.

(06-23-2020 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:51 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:18 AM)allerretour Wrote:  I'd be pretty much done with Rice if they change the name or take down the statue (not that they'd miss my paltry contributions). I think I'd become anti-Rice if they put a separate black house on campus.

What is the black house that is part of the discussion? I haven't seen a good explanation floating around (but admittedly, I could have missed it). Is it a dorm/residential college? Or is it more like the Women's Resource Center - a permanent, physical space on campus?

Both. They're demanding a separate off-campus dorm or residential college exclusively for African-Americans as well as a building/center for African-Americans to congregate and discuss issues. Yes, this is going back to segregation, which runs counter to their mission.

I support BLM and agree with many of their requests, however, on several facebook and twitter Rice-related pages they are attacking anyone who doesn't agree with them 100%, or even those who politely raise concerns over one or two of their "demands" or the tone of their letter to the administration. Instead, they're quick to label such supportive alums as "racist" and "sexist" (since the majority of the co-signers are women). They also fail to recognize the very significant progress that has been made over the past 10 years, and the number of recent initiatives put in place to address diversity and promote increased African-American awareness and resources. Certainly, there are areas (e.g., hiring, admissions) in which further improvement is needed, but I'm not sure their aggressive, antagonistic approach is the most effective way of affecting further change. Having said that, they are certainly getting heard, and this is long overdue.

Bingo.

I personally am not knowledgeable enough on the efforts that current and former students have made in lobbying the university to address any or all of the issues that have been brought up recently, so I don't feel like criticizing the current leaders for their tone makes much sense, unless on knows that this is the very first time all of these items have been raised to the admin.

The crucial issue, to me, will be how negotiations go and whether there will be willingness to negotiate and compromise on the list of demands - whatever the final list may be.

It does seem like there are a lot of lists flying around, and it isn't exactly clear if there is a cohesive set of demands that have been provided to the admin from a specific group.

I agree. I've been trying to follow this issue and it seems like there might be multiple groups and multiple "demands".

(06-23-2020 09:55 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:47 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 06:53 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  Ok, so just to be clear....you DISAGREE that it’s left wing people who are rioting, vandalizing monuments, and calling for the destruction of the fabric of the United States?

That’s an interesting take. Lol....

I agree in the technical sense: most of the monument vandals are left wing, but few of the left wing people vandalize monuments. Treating "left wing people" and "monument vandals" as more or less the same set is absurd.

The exact analogy is "it's conservative people who are alt right / neonazis killing people in order to stoke race tensions blah blah"
Do you DISAGREE with that?, because it's ... technically true. But making that statement is still absurd and misleading, isn't it?

2 things can be true at once....not all left wing people are vandalizing this country...and never did I say that. However, the people who are vandalizing the country are left wing.

No?

Technically, sure, agreed (although what share of the violence/property damage is being caused by right wingers is as of right now unclear).

However, I suspect (so correct me if I'm wrong) that the intent of the sentence "people who are vandalizing the country are left wing" is to draw a causal connection, like somehow left wing politics are causing vandalism. And if *that*'s what you're trying to say, then no, disagree. For that claim, you'd have to account for why 99% of left wing people haven't torn down a statue, why 99% of conservatives haven't committed a domestic terrorist act, etc.

The more intellectually honest wording is "some extremists holding left political views tear down statues," "some neo nazis holding conservative political views kill cops" etc. Such wording immediately acknowledges that there is a difference between your average person with progressive/conservative views and the extremists. The wording also avoids needless polarization from pretending the world is "them" (all the same) vs. "us" (complex, heterogeneous)

(06-23-2020 10:28 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:55 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:47 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 06:53 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  Ok, so just to be clear....you DISAGREE that it’s left wing people who are rioting, vandalizing monuments, and calling for the destruction of the fabric of the United States?

That’s an interesting take. Lol....

I agree in the technical sense: most of the monument vandals are left wing, but few of the left wing people vandalize monuments. Treating "left wing people" and "monument vandals" as more or less the same set is absurd.

The exact analogy is "it's conservative people who are alt right / neonazis killing people in order to stoke race tensions blah blah"
Do you DISAGREE with that?, because it's ... technically true. But making that statement is still absurd and misleading, isn't it?

2 things can be true at once....not all left wing people are vandalizing this country...and never did I say that. However, the people who are vandalizing the country are left wing.

No?

Technically, sure, agreed (although what share of the violence/property damage is being caused by right wingers is as of right now unclear).

However, I suspect (so correct me if I'm wrong) that the intent of the sentence "people who are vandalizing the country are left wing" is to draw a causal connection, like somehow left wing politics are causing vandalism. And if *that*'s what you're trying to say, then no, disagree. For that claim, you'd have to account for why 99% of left wing people haven't torn down a statue, why 99% of conservatives haven't committed a domestic terrorist act, etc.

The more intellectually honest wording is "some extremists holding left political views tear down statues," "some neo nazis holding conservative political views kill cops" etc. Such wording immediately acknowledges that there is a difference between your average person with progressive/conservative views and the extremists. The wording also avoids needless polarization from pretending the world is "them" (all the same) vs. "us" (complex, heterogeneous)

Funny, seems to me the last time someone pointed out there were good people on both sides, one side went completely ape ****.

(06-23-2020 10:28 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:55 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:47 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 06:53 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  Ok, so just to be clear....you DISAGREE that it’s left wing people who are rioting, vandalizing monuments, and calling for the destruction of the fabric of the United States?

That’s an interesting take. Lol....

I agree in the technical sense: most of the monument vandals are left wing, but few of the left wing people vandalize monuments. Treating "left wing people" and "monument vandals" as more or less the same set is absurd.

The exact analogy is "it's conservative people who are alt right / neonazis killing people in order to stoke race tensions blah blah"
Do you DISAGREE with that?, because it's ... technically true. But making that statement is still absurd and misleading, isn't it?

2 things can be true at once....not all left wing people are vandalizing this country...and never did I say that. However, the people who are vandalizing the country are left wing.

No?

Technically, sure, agreed (although what share of the violence/property damage is being caused by right wingers is as of right now unclear).

However, I suspect (so correct me if I'm wrong) that the intent of the sentence "people who are vandalizing the country are left wing" is to draw a causal connection, like somehow left wing politics are causing vandalism. And if *that*'s what you're trying to say, then no, disagree. For that claim, you'd have to account for why 99% of left wing people haven't torn down a statue, why 99% of conservatives haven't committed a domestic terrorist act, etc.

The more intellectually honest wording is "some extremists holding left political views tear down statues," "some neo nazis holding conservative political views kill cops" etc. Such wording immediately acknowledges that there is a difference between your average person with progressive/conservative views and the extremists. The wording also avoids needless polarization from pretending the world is "them" (all the same) vs. "us" (complex, heterogeneous)

I would say all rioters are a subset of those holding left wing political views. Rumors of neo-nazi agitators are just unsubstantiated rumors. show me one. And I am unaware of any neo-nazi murders of cops, so perhaps you could provide a list. I think comparing the numbers of statue pullers and rioters to neo-nazi cop murderers would be enlightening.

I think the movements are expanding way beyond a few "extremists". There are a lot of everyday people sympathizing with the extremists who would not be classified as extremists. BTW, how would you classify a person as a left-wing extremist?

(06-23-2020 10:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:28 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:55 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:47 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 06:53 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  Ok, so just to be clear....you DISAGREE that it’s left wing people who are rioting, vandalizing monuments, and calling for the destruction of the fabric of the United States?

That’s an interesting take. Lol....

I agree in the technical sense: most of the monument vandals are left wing, but few of the left wing people vandalize monuments. Treating "left wing people" and "monument vandals" as more or less the same set is absurd.

The exact analogy is "it's conservative people who are alt right / neonazis killing people in order to stoke race tensions blah blah"
Do you DISAGREE with that?, because it's ... technically true. But making that statement is still absurd and misleading, isn't it?

2 things can be true at once....not all left wing people are vandalizing this country...and never did I say that. However, the people who are vandalizing the country are left wing.

No?

Technically, sure, agreed (although what share of the violence/property damage is being caused by right wingers is as of right now unclear).

However, I suspect (so correct me if I'm wrong) that the intent of the sentence "people who are vandalizing the country are left wing" is to draw a causal connection, like somehow left wing politics are causing vandalism. And if *that*'s what you're trying to say, then no, disagree. For that claim, you'd have to account for why 99% of left wing people haven't torn down a statue, why 99% of conservatives haven't committed a domestic terrorist act, etc.

The more intellectually honest wording is "some extremists holding left political views tear down statues," "some neo nazis holding conservative political views kill cops" etc. Such wording immediately acknowledges that there is a difference between your average person with progressive/conservative views and the extremists. The wording also avoids needless polarization from pretending the world is "them" (all the same) vs. "us" (complex, heterogeneous)

Funny, seems to me the last time someone pointed out there were good people on both sides, one side went completely ape ****.

It depends what "sides" in "both sides" refers to. If side = registered Republicans, then obviously there are good (and bad) people there. If side = neo nazis, then uhhh, it's all bad and everyone is right to go completely ape **** if someone claims there are good people there.

(06-23-2020 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:28 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:55 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:47 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 06:53 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  Ok, so just to be clear....you DISAGREE that it’s left wing people who are rioting, vandalizing monuments, and calling for the destruction of the fabric of the United States?

That’s an interesting take. Lol....

I agree in the technical sense: most of the monument vandals are left wing, but few of the left wing people vandalize monuments. Treating "left wing people" and "monument vandals" as more or less the same set is absurd.

The exact analogy is "it's conservative people who are alt right / neonazis killing people in order to stoke race tensions blah blah"
Do you DISAGREE with that?, because it's ... technically true. But making that statement is still absurd and misleading, isn't it?

2 things can be true at once....not all left wing people are vandalizing this country...and never did I say that. However, the people who are vandalizing the country are left wing.

No?

Technically, sure, agreed (although what share of the violence/property damage is being caused by right wingers is as of right now unclear).

However, I suspect (so correct me if I'm wrong) that the intent of the sentence "people who are vandalizing the country are left wing" is to draw a causal connection, like somehow left wing politics are causing vandalism. And if *that*'s what you're trying to say, then no, disagree. For that claim, you'd have to account for why 99% of left wing people haven't torn down a statue, why 99% of conservatives haven't committed a domestic terrorist act, etc.

The more intellectually honest wording is "some extremists holding left political views tear down statues," "some neo nazis holding conservative political views kill cops" etc. Such wording immediately acknowledges that there is a difference between your average person with progressive/conservative views and the extremists. The wording also avoids needless polarization from pretending the world is "them" (all the same) vs. "us" (complex, heterogeneous)

I would say all rioters are a subset of those holding left wing political views. Rumors of neo-nazi agitators are just unsubstantiated rumors. show me one. And I am unaware of any neo-nazi murders of cops, so perhaps you could provide a list. I think comparing the numbers of statue pullers and rioters to neo-nazi cop murderers would be enlightening.

This is a recent one.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story...al-officer

(06-23-2020 10:55 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:28 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:55 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:47 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  I agree in the technical sense: most of the monument vandals are left wing, but few of the left wing people vandalize monuments. Treating "left wing people" and "monument vandals" as more or less the same set is absurd.

The exact analogy is "it's conservative people who are alt right / neonazis killing people in order to stoke race tensions blah blah"
Do you DISAGREE with that?, because it's ... technically true. But making that statement is still absurd and misleading, isn't it?

2 things can be true at once....not all left wing people are vandalizing this country...and never did I say that. However, the people who are vandalizing the country are left wing.

No?

Technically, sure, agreed (although what share of the violence/property damage is being caused by right wingers is as of right now unclear).

However, I suspect (so correct me if I'm wrong) that the intent of the sentence "people who are vandalizing the country are left wing" is to draw a causal connection, like somehow left wing politics are causing vandalism. And if *that*'s what you're trying to say, then no, disagree. For that claim, you'd have to account for why 99% of left wing people haven't torn down a statue, why 99% of conservatives haven't committed a domestic terrorist act, etc.

The more intellectually honest wording is "some extremists holding left political views tear down statues," "some neo nazis holding conservative political views kill cops" etc. Such wording immediately acknowledges that there is a difference between your average person with progressive/conservative views and the extremists. The wording also avoids needless polarization from pretending the world is "them" (all the same) vs. "us" (complex, heterogeneous)

Funny, seems to me the last time someone pointed out there were good people on both sides, one side went completely ape ****.

It depends what "sides" in "both sides" refers to. If side = registered Republicans, then obviously there are good (and bad) people there. If side = neo nazis, then uhhh, it's all bad and everyone is right to go completely ape **** if someone claims there are good people there.

Hate to tell you, but not *everyone* who protests to keep a Confederate general statute in place is a 'neo-nazi'. I mean you already understand and powerfully argue the concept of 'everyone' so strongly above. Which is correct. And then abandon it.

(06-23-2020 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:55 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:28 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:55 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  2 things can be true at once....not all left wing people are vandalizing this country...and never did I say that. However, the people who are vandalizing the country are left wing.

No?

Technically, sure, agreed (although what share of the violence/property damage is being caused by right wingers is as of right now unclear).

However, I suspect (so correct me if I'm wrong) that the intent of the sentence "people who are vandalizing the country are left wing" is to draw a causal connection, like somehow left wing politics are causing vandalism. And if *that*'s what you're trying to say, then no, disagree. For that claim, you'd have to account for why 99% of left wing people haven't torn down a statue, why 99% of conservatives haven't committed a domestic terrorist act, etc.

The more intellectually honest wording is "some extremists holding left political views tear down statues," "some neo nazis holding conservative political views kill cops" etc. Such wording immediately acknowledges that there is a difference between your average person with progressive/conservative views and the extremists. The wording also avoids needless polarization from pretending the world is "them" (all the same) vs. "us" (complex, heterogeneous)

Funny, seems to me the last time someone pointed out there were good people on both sides, one side went completely ape ****.

It depends what "sides" in "both sides" refers to. If side = registered Republicans, then obviously there are good (and bad) people there. If side = neo nazis, then uhhh, it's all bad and everyone is right to go completely ape **** if someone claims there are good people there.

Hate to tell you, but not *everyone* who protests to keep a Confederate general statute in place is a 'neo-nazi'. I mean you already understand and powerfully argue the concept of 'everyone' so strongly above. Which is correct. And then abandon it.

Honest question, not a wind-up. Do you think many non-white supremacists showed up to that Charlottesville rally? I understand that there are MANY people who oppose removing Confederate statues who are not white supremacists. But did those people actually show up to a rally that IIRC was being put on by known white supremacists? I can't remember how the rally was "advertised" in the days leading up to it. It seems like that was 100 years ago.

(06-23-2020 11:06 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:28 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:55 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:47 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  I agree in the technical sense: most of the monument vandals are left wing, but few of the left wing people vandalize monuments. Treating "left wing people" and "monument vandals" as more or less the same set is absurd.

The exact analogy is "it's conservative people who are alt right / neonazis killing people in order to stoke race tensions blah blah"
Do you DISAGREE with that?, because it's ... technically true. But making that statement is still absurd and misleading, isn't it?

2 things can be true at once....not all left wing people are vandalizing this country...and never did I say that. However, the people who are vandalizing the country are left wing.

No?

Technically, sure, agreed (although what share of the violence/property damage is being caused by right wingers is as of right now unclear).

However, I suspect (so correct me if I'm wrong) that the intent of the sentence "people who are vandalizing the country are left wing" is to draw a causal connection, like somehow left wing politics are causing vandalism. And if *that*'s what you're trying to say, then no, disagree. For that claim, you'd have to account for why 99% of left wing people haven't torn down a statue, why 99% of conservatives haven't committed a domestic terrorist act, etc.

The more intellectually honest wording is "some extremists holding left political views tear down statues," "some neo nazis holding conservative political views kill cops" etc. Such wording immediately acknowledges that there is a difference between your average person with progressive/conservative views and the extremists. The wording also avoids needless polarization from pretending the world is "them" (all the same) vs. "us" (complex, heterogeneous)

I would say all rioters are a subset of those holding left wing political views. Rumors of neo-nazi agitators are just unsubstantiated rumors. show me one. And I am unaware of any neo-nazi murders of cops, so perhaps you could provide a list. I think comparing the numbers of statue pullers and rioters to neo-nazi cop murderers would be enlightening.

This is a recent one.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story...al-officer

Thank you 93, I knew somebody would find one.

(emulating the Count on Sesame Street) That is ONE. One right wing cop killer.

Now how many left wingers have we seen on TV the last month or two rioting, looting, tearing down statues?

Is the ratio now about a million to one?

THAT is why IB's comparison is invalid.

I fully agree that not all left-wingers are violent. 93 is a good example. Good man. I am a right winger, but I am not a neo-nazi nor have I killed any cops. Also, i don't know anybody who has. But nearly 100% of the violent protesters are left wing. And nearly all of the apologists of the violent protesters are left-wing. Compare that to ONE neo-nazi cop killer.

Invalid comparison. Looks to me like it is based on a stereotype.

Just turn on the evening news and watch. Read what is written. Trying to equivocate between the right and left wings on the basis of violence committed is like trying to equate a hot day in July to a ten year drought.

Now, back to deciding who is demanding what and why.

And the Quad antics have spilled over into the main board...

We had done a decent job discussing the demands and cancel culture for a while - it was interesting while it lasted.

Anyone know if Rice has made any formal response to the demands?

(06-23-2020 11:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 11:06 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:28 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:55 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  2 things can be true at once....not all left wing people are vandalizing this country...and never did I say that. However, the people who are vandalizing the country are left wing.

No?

Technically, sure, agreed (although what share of the violence/property damage is being caused by right wingers is as of right now unclear). Just a quick response to your "I am unaware of any neo-nazi murders of cops".

However, I suspect (so correct me if I'm wrong) that the intent of the sentence "people who are vandalizing the country are left wing" is to draw a causal connection, like somehow left wing politics are causing vandalism. And if *that*'s what you're trying to say, then no, disagree. For that claim, you'd have to account for why 99% of left wing people haven't torn down a statue, why 99% of conservatives haven't committed a domestic terrorist act, etc.

The more intellectually honest wording is "some extremists holding left political views tear down statues," "some neo nazis holding conservative political views kill cops" etc. Such wording immediately acknowledges that there is a difference between your average person with progressive/conservative views and the extremists. The wording also avoids needless polarization from pretending the world is "them" (all the same) vs. "us" (complex, heterogeneous)

I would say all rioters are a subset of those holding left wing political views. Rumors of neo-nazi agitators are just unsubstantiated rumors. show me one. And I am unaware of any neo-nazi murders of cops, so perhaps you could provide a list. I think comparing the numbers of statue pullers and rioters to neo-nazi cop murderers would be enlightening.

This is a recent one.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story...al-officer

Thank you 93, I knew somebody would find one.

(emulating the Count on Sesame Street) That is ONE. One right wing cop killer.

Now how many left wingers have we seen on TV the last month or two rioting, looting, tearing down statues?

Is the ratio now about a million to one?

THAT is why IB's comparison is invalid.

I fully agree that not all left-wingers are violent. 93 is a good example. Good man. I am a right winger, but I am not a neo-nazi nor have I killed any cops. Also, i don't know anybody who has. But nearly 100% of the violent protesters are left wing. And nearly all of the apologists of the violent protesters are left-wing. Compare that to ONE neo-nazi cop killer.

Come on. Nobody implied that was a complete list. It was a quick response to your "I am unaware of any neo-nazi murders of cops".

(06-23-2020 12:12 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 11:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 11:06 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:28 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  Technically, sure, agreed (although what share of the violence/property damage is being caused by right wingers is as of right now unclear). Just a quick response to your "I am unaware of any neo-nazi murders of cops".

However, I suspect (so correct me if I'm wrong) that the intent of the sentence "people who are vandalizing the country are left wing" is to draw a causal connection, like somehow left wing politics are causing vandalism. And if *that*'s what you're trying to say, then no, disagree. For that claim, you'd have to account for why 99% of left wing people haven't torn down a statue, why 99% of conservatives haven't committed a domestic terrorist act, etc.

The more intellectually honest wording is "some extremists holding left political views tear down statues," "some neo nazis holding conservative political views kill cops" etc. Such wording immediately acknowledges that there is a difference between your average person with progressive/conservative views and the extremists. The wording also avoids needless polarization from pretending the world is "them" (all the same) vs. "us" (complex, heterogeneous)

I would say all rioters are a subset of those holding left wing political views. Rumors of neo-nazi agitators are just unsubstantiated rumors. show me one. And I am unaware of any neo-nazi murders of cops, so perhaps you could provide a list. I think comparing the numbers of statue pullers and rioters to neo-nazi cop murderers would be enlightening.

This is a recent one.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story...al-officer

Thank you 93, I knew somebody would find one.

(emulating the Count on Sesame Street) That is ONE. One right wing cop killer.

Now how many left wingers have we seen on TV the last month or two rioting, looting, tearing down statues?

Is the ratio now about a million to one?

THAT is why IB's comparison is invalid.

I fully agree that not all left-wingers are violent. 93 is a good example. Good man. I am a right winger, but I am not a neo-nazi nor have I killed any cops. Also, i don't know anybody who has. But nearly 100% of the violent protesters are left wing. And nearly all of the apologists of the violent protesters are left-wing. Compare that to ONE neo-nazi cop killer.

Come on. Nobody implied that was a complete list. It was a quick response to your "I am unaware of any neo-nazi murders of cops".

Nobody, including me, implied that was or was not a complete list. Feel free to add to it.

What I was pointing out was that cop killings by neo-nazis are incredibly rare compared to the left wing violence we have been seeing on the news, and much less representative of that side. IB's scale balancing left a lot to be desired.

(06-23-2020 10:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:28 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:55 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:47 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 06:53 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  Ok, so just to be clear....you DISAGREE that it’s left wing people who are rioting, vandalizing monuments, and calling for the destruction of the fabric of the United States?

That’s an interesting take. Lol....

I agree in the technical sense: most of the monument vandals are left wing, but few of the left wing people vandalize monuments. Treating "left wing people" and "monument vandals" as more or less the same set is absurd.

The exact analogy is "it's conservative people who are alt right / neonazis killing people in order to stoke race tensions blah blah"
Do you DISAGREE with that?, because it's ... technically true. But making that statement is still absurd and misleading, isn't it?

2 things can be true at once....not all left wing people are vandalizing this country...and never did I say that. However, the people who are vandalizing the country are left wing.

No?

Technically, sure, agreed (although what share of the violence/property damage is being caused by right wingers is as of right now unclear).

However, I suspect (so correct me if I'm wrong) that the intent of the sentence "people who are vandalizing the country are left wing" is to draw a causal connection, like somehow left wing politics are causing vandalism. And if *that*'s what you're trying to say, then no, disagree. For that claim, you'd have to account for why 99% of left wing people haven't torn down a statue, why 99% of conservatives haven't committed a domestic terrorist act, etc.

The more intellectually honest wording is "some extremists holding left political views tear down statues," "some neo nazis holding conservative political views kill cops" etc. Such wording immediately acknowledges that there is a difference between your average person with progressive/conservative views and the extremists. The wording also avoids needless polarization from pretending the world is "them" (all the same) vs. "us" (complex, heterogeneous)

Funny, seems to me the last time someone pointed out there were good people on both sides, one side went completely ape ****.

Bingo.

Not gonna write a dissertation here but I’m fairly certain the prominent group that’s publicly called for the murder of cops would be BLM. Anyone who supports BLM and champions their cause without acknowledging the fact that they’ve literally called for murder of police is not a serious person.

Left wing policies and pandering to radical left wing idiots like Antifa and BLM are absolutely to blame for the destruction of our country.

That’s a damn fact and it doesn’t care about your liberal, bleeding heart feelings.

(06-23-2020 01:54 PM)Owl1998 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:28 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:55 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:47 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  I agree in the technical sense: most of the monument vandals are left wing, but few of the left wing people vandalize monuments. Treating "left wing people" and "monument vandals" as more or less the same set is absurd.

The exact analogy is "it's conservative people who are alt right / neonazis killing people in order to stoke race tensions blah blah"
Do you DISAGREE with that?, because it's ... technically true. But making that statement is still absurd and misleading, isn't it?

2 things can be true at once....not all left wing people are vandalizing this country...and never did I say that. However, the people who are vandalizing the country are left wing.

No?

Technically, sure, agreed (although what share of the violence/property damage is being caused by right wingers is as of right now unclear).

However, I suspect (so correct me if I'm wrong) that the intent of the sentence "people who are vandalizing the country are left wing" is to draw a causal connection, like somehow left wing politics are causing vandalism. And if *that*'s what you're trying to say, then no, disagree. For that claim, you'd have to account for why 99% of left wing people haven't torn down a statue, why 99% of conservatives haven't committed a domestic terrorist act, etc.

The more intellectually honest wording is "some extremists holding left political views tear down statues," "some neo nazis holding conservative political views kill cops" etc. Such wording immediately acknowledges that there is a difference between your average person with progressive/conservative views and the extremists. The wording also avoids needless polarization from pretending the world is "them" (all the same) vs. "us" (complex, heterogeneous)

Funny, seems to me the last time someone pointed out there were good people on both sides, one side went completely ape ****.

Bingo.

Not gonna write a dissertation here but I’m fairly certain the prominent group that’s publicly called for the murder of cops would be BLM. Anyone who supports BLM and champions their cause without acknowledging the fact that they’ve literally called for murder of police is not a serious person.

Left wing policies and pandering to radical left wing idiots like Antifa and BLM are absolutely to blame for the destruction of our country.

That’s a damn fact and it doesn’t care about your liberal, bleeding heart feelings.

Are you talking about the actual organization of BLM? Or are you talking about individuals themselves?

I don't remember the public call for murdering cops, but a lot of things are flying around. Can you provide some more info/a link to that? It would significantly change my opinion of that organization if they were publicly advocating murder.

(06-23-2020 01:54 PM)Owl1998 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:28 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:55 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:47 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  I agree in the technical sense: most of the monument vandals are left wing, but few of the left wing people vandalize monuments. Treating "left wing people" and "monument vandals" as more or less the same set is absurd.

The exact analogy is "it's conservative people who are alt right / neonazis killing people in order to stoke race tensions blah blah"
Do you DISAGREE with that?, because it's ... technically true. But making that statement is still absurd and misleading, isn't it?

2 things can be true at once....not all left wing people are vandalizing this country...and never did I say that. However, the people who are vandalizing the country are left wing.

No?

Technically, sure, agreed (although what share of the violence/property damage is being caused by right wingers is as of right now unclear).

However, I suspect (so correct me if I'm wrong) that the intent of the sentence "people who are vandalizing the country are left wing" is to draw a causal connection, like somehow left wing politics are causing vandalism. And if *that*'s what you're trying to say, then no, disagree. For that claim, you'd have to account for why 99% of left wing people haven't torn down a statue, why 99% of conservatives haven't committed a domestic terrorist act, etc.

The more intellectually honest wording is "some extremists holding left political views tear down statues," "some neo nazis holding conservative political views kill cops" etc. Such wording immediately acknowledges that there is a difference between your average person with progressive/conservative views and the extremists. The wording also avoids needless polarization from pretending the world is "them" (all the same) vs. "us" (complex, heterogeneous)

Funny, seems to me the last time someone pointed out there were good people on both sides, one side went completely ape ****.

Bingo.

Not gonna write a dissertation here but I’m fairly certain the prominent group that’s publicly called for the murder of cops would be BLM. Anyone who supports BLM and champions their cause without acknowledging the fact that they’ve literally called for murder of police is not a serious person.

I'm not even sure what "BLM" means, actually. Are you referring to the incorporated network that operates as a charity? I would be surprised if there was any call for the murder of police from the official organization. I would not be surprised if a rando in a BLM protest carried a sign that said "Death to the police".

Quote:Left wing policies and pandering to radical left wing idiots like Antifa and BLM are absolutely to blame for the destruction of our country.

Pushing for universal healthcare, spending on education, addressing income inequality, supporting equal rights for minorities are destroying our country?

Antifa is, IMO, a right wing news media bogeyman. I don't think they have nearly the influence/reach/numbers that you seem to imply.

Quote:That’s a damn fact and it doesn’t care about your liberal, bleeding heart feelings.

If it's a damn fact then I guess we shouldn't debate it.

Seems like this thread should be moved to the Quad.

Quote:Seems like this thread should be moved to the Quad.

At the beginning of it. As should have nightowls.

Quote:I don't think they have nearly the influence/reach/numbers that you seem to imply.

I suggest you denote that to the citizens of Seattle. Or Berkeley. Or Charlottesville. Or any multitude of places that they have reared their heads. Or any multitude of people that their followers have clubbed, kicked, punched, or thrown acid 'milkshakes' at.

Granted, Charlottesville is the outlier, since that one was the 'red ants' cracking heads on the 'black ants', and vice versa -- in the others they are enjoying the cracking heads to a great extent all by themselves.

Honestly, if I were you, after the last 2 and a half weeks, I would playing up Antifa as such. If they are a 'right wing media boogeyman', then the last 20 days really looks a tad more shockingly bad for greater numbers of 'more normal lefties' than even I would be comfortable noting.

(06-23-2020 02:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 01:54 PM)Owl1998 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:28 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:55 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  2 things can be true at once....not all left wing people are vandalizing this country...and never did I say that. However, the people who are vandalizing the country are left wing.

No?

Technically, sure, agreed (although what share of the violence/property damage is being caused by right wingers is as of right now unclear).

However, I suspect (so correct me if I'm wrong) that the intent of the sentence "people who are vandalizing the country are left wing" is to draw a causal connection, like somehow left wing politics are causing vandalism. And if *that*'s what you're trying to say, then no, disagree. For that claim, you'd have to account for why 99% of left wing people haven't torn down a statue, why 99% of conservatives haven't committed a domestic terrorist act, etc.

The more intellectually honest wording is "some extremists holding left political views tear down statues," "some neo nazis holding conservative political views kill cops" etc. Such wording immediately acknowledges that there is a difference between your average person with progressive/conservative views and the extremists. The wording also avoids needless polarization from pretending the world is "them" (all the same) vs. "us" (complex, heterogeneous)

Funny, seems to me the last time someone pointed out there were good people on both sides, one side went completely ape ****.

Bingo.

Not gonna write a dissertation here but I’m fairly certain the prominent group that’s publicly called for the murder of cops would be BLM. Anyone who supports BLM and champions their cause without acknowledging the fact that they’ve literally called for murder of police is not a serious person.

Left wing policies and pandering to radical left wing idiots like Antifa and BLM are absolutely to blame for the destruction of our country.

That’s a damn fact and it doesn’t care about your liberal, bleeding heart feelings.

Are you talking about the actual organization of BLM? Or are you talking about individuals themselves?

I don't remember the public call for murdering cops, but a lot of things are flying around. Can you provide some more info/a link to that? It would significantly change my opinion of that organization if they were publicly advocating murder.

There’s a distinction between random people saying “Black Lives Matter” and the organization that calls themselves “BLM”.

Of course black live matter. Nobody disagrees with that. But the organization of BLM is a destructive, divisive group led by trained Marxists (their words, not mine)

And yes, the chant “we want dead cops....when do we want them? Now!” has taken place at multiple “rallies.”

(06-20-2020 11:32 PM)Ourland Wrote:  Anyone who doesn't like the statue, doesn't have to look at the statue.

I mean... except those people who live in traditionally black neighborhoods where statues were placed to remind black people where they stood as civil rights gained some momentum.

Quote:“Eventually they started to build [Confederate] monuments,” he says. “The vast majority of them were built between the 1890s and 1950s, which matches up exactly with the era of Jim Crow segregation.” According to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s research, the biggest spike was between 1900 and the 1920s.

https://www.history.com/news/how-the-u-s...-monuments

(06-23-2020 03:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:Seems like this thread should be moved to the Quad.

At the beginning of it. As should have nightowls.

Quote:I don't think they have nearly the influence/reach/numbers that you seem to imply.

I suggest you denote that to the citizens of Seattle. Or Berkeley. Or Charlottesville. Or any multitude of places that they have reared their heads. Or any multitude of people that their followers have clubbed, kicked, punched, or thrown acid 'milkshakes' at.

Granted, Charlottesville is the outlier, since that one was the 'red ants' cracking heads on the 'black ants', and vice versa -- in the others they are enjoying the cracking heads to a great extent all by themselves.

Honestly, if I were you, after the last 2 and a half weeks, I would playing up Antifa as such. If they are a 'right wing media boogeyman', then the last 20 days really looks a tad more shockingly bad for greater numbers of 'more normal lefties' than even I would be comfortable noting.

Acid milkshakes? What?

https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingra...tland-meme

Can you provide a link to some proof of that claim?