07-01-2017, 03:48 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2017, 04:38 AM by FireIceTalon.)
It's not a false dichotomy, it's simply a matter of there being no room or time for "middle ground" anymore. You may not be a white supremacist, in the sense that one typically is in believing whites should have their own nation or completely deny that there is a race problem to begin with. But turning a blind eye is almost as bad, and is part of the problem. I'm not a big fan of Howard Zinn, who was a Chomskyist liberal at best. But he was right when he said "you cannot be neutral on a moving train". You were much quicker to condemn the riots than you were systemic police killings of minorities. Maybe that wasn't your intention, but when I see people up in arms about violent reactions to oppression before they are about the oppression itself, its always a red flag to me (and not the kind of red flag I like).
I felt a similar way in how Bolty reacted to my Portland thread by locking it and giving me a temp ban (meanwhile, Ashock is allowed to roam freely with his spam and trolls threads spreading his bigotry around), where he appeared to be much more concerned about my reaction rather than the terrorist who killed two people that came to the defense of two black women that were being harassed by him. Him locking the thread and giving me a temp ban is just proof he is sympathetic towards white nationalist ideology, as I see it. He should have been more concerned and upset about the situation in Portland, not my reaction to it.
It is a historical reality that the ruling classes of any society have never willingly given up their power. They have always been forced to give it up, sometimes it went relatively smooth with only minor skirmishes of violence, other times it was a blood bath (mostly from the ruling classes, though). It is just a fact of circumstance that overthrowing an oppressive and violent system usually requires, to some degree, violence itself. Just how it is. But again, I look at those who are being oppressed as fighting back in self-defense, not violence. Oppressing or exploiting people in the FIRST place, is violent and such a system can ONLY be maintained through a monopoly of violence and coercion.
In truth, I don't condone the 1992 Los Angeles riots as a method for change, just because they are not fundamental enough to accomplish it. It was mostly a reaction against a specific outcome of a particular case and the racial tensions that were building up beforehand. It wasn't a cohesive and genuine proletarian movement against the capitalist system, involving mass strikes, people taking control of their workplaces, and educating others about capitalism and socialism - not even close. I do understand the reaction of their community though, given the circumstances.
I felt a similar way in how Bolty reacted to my Portland thread by locking it and giving me a temp ban (meanwhile, Ashock is allowed to roam freely with his spam and trolls threads spreading his bigotry around), where he appeared to be much more concerned about my reaction rather than the terrorist who killed two people that came to the defense of two black women that were being harassed by him. Him locking the thread and giving me a temp ban is just proof he is sympathetic towards white nationalist ideology, as I see it. He should have been more concerned and upset about the situation in Portland, not my reaction to it.
It is a historical reality that the ruling classes of any society have never willingly given up their power. They have always been forced to give it up, sometimes it went relatively smooth with only minor skirmishes of violence, other times it was a blood bath (mostly from the ruling classes, though). It is just a fact of circumstance that overthrowing an oppressive and violent system usually requires, to some degree, violence itself. Just how it is. But again, I look at those who are being oppressed as fighting back in self-defense, not violence. Oppressing or exploiting people in the FIRST place, is violent and such a system can ONLY be maintained through a monopoly of violence and coercion.
In truth, I don't condone the 1992 Los Angeles riots as a method for change, just because they are not fundamental enough to accomplish it. It was mostly a reaction against a specific outcome of a particular case and the racial tensions that were building up beforehand. It wasn't a cohesive and genuine proletarian movement against the capitalist system, involving mass strikes, people taking control of their workplaces, and educating others about capitalism and socialism - not even close. I do understand the reaction of their community though, given the circumstances.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)