BF2S Forums Race relations thread

you seem to have a very hard time distinguishing between inchoate expressions of anger/frustration, and programmes for reform. the two things can coexist and even contradict one another, dilbert. BLM is a decentralised movement, not some top-down militia dispatching units to different cities. yes, large crowds of pissed off people are going to scrawl graffiti on the 'good guy's statues every now and then.

the 'defund the police' movement is really homologous to the 'scandinavian social democracy would be nice' argument -- something which you have repeatedly variously spoken about with regards to the USA. they're not asking for america to abolish its police tout court and for everyone to try getting along using community conversation and 'kumbaya' civics. they're asking for some of the vast amounts of police/military spending to be re-routed into other social programmes, community outreach, welfare/safety nets, etc. these are all things which you have tacitly approved of elsewhere, passim, when you reference the parlous state of america's politics.

funny that a group of people who want community policing and social outreach/engagement more like finland's or norway's (or, scratch that, anywhere in europe where the police don't murder people) are suddenly *checks notes* dangerous racial radicals who must be stopped, when it's black people making the argument. i don't suppose it's worth pointing out to you that many of the 'social democratic' gains made for the benefit of all, i.e. worker's rights, were initially won by the skirmishes of other groups. that's the amazing thing about the law!

Last edited by uziq (2020-08-09 02:48:44)

take a history lesson and leverage yourself out of your ridiculous ignorance. the continent of africa is a very big place with a very wide range of cultures, dilbert. great case study, though. ‘we took any african country ...’. fail; please see teacher.

that's very easy ... ?

botswana and mauritius are two paradigmatic 'success stories', for very different reasons, because, again, africa is a huge fucking continent with a diversity of cultures, climate, resources, etc. etc. botswana is resource-rich and mauritius is, well, basically empty. both are economic success stories, middle-income countries, have free and open democracies, etc.

lots of african countries which are resource rich suffer from 'resource curses', which are very well-analysed phenomena in economics and development studies. a fledgling nation with a newly emergent bureaucracy/middle-class finds itself massively influenced by the established global interests in that market, e.g. oil companies. no surprises that official corruption starts to permeate every aspect of the society.

these places went from being the poorest nations on earth in the mid-20th century, starting from less than zero in many cases. botswana and mauritius, to take two examples, were no different: at the very bottom of the pile. now they are success stories, in the space of 40-50 years. how could this be possible if, *checks notes* africans cannot rule themselves? if blackness and negritude is a genetic curse???

mAke U thiNk

Last edited by uziq (2020-08-09 03:07:58)

and, again, why are you persistently confusing african-americans for 'africa', the continent, with its own separate political history? what does the community of new orleans or south chicago have to do with the congo? you are quite literally the only person i have ever engaged with who makes this connection. 'well, if they don't like their conditions, they can go back to africa'. i thought that was like a pantomime version of racism that you only see in poorly written movies.

botswana was indeed at the very forefront of the HIV/AIDS crisis, and suffered a lot as a result. again, these are vastly complex issues involving not only economic development but long-changing cultural attitudes, religious belief, etc. i'm not sure what the AIDS crisis has to do with the desirability or economic success of botswana, though?

it's like you are incapable of complex or nuanced reasoning. 'africa bad! black people! poverty! AIDS! warlords!'. you are discussing the largest inhabited continent on the planet, with an extremely long and tangled past often involving centuries of colonial occupation. those things are not negligible peccadilloes.

nobody has denied that 'culture' influences development through the generations. that is literally one of the main premises of a 'culture'. but you completely misuse and abuse this idea. there is no 'black culture'. what pertains in botswana does not pertain in angola, or mauritius, or kenya -- let alone fucking missouri or tennessee. if you're going to cite the culture argument, please explain how, say, a nation's AIDS crisis bears on its 'culture', and how this same 'culture' can create an economic success story? please unpack some of this tortuous thinking for me, dilbert.

you seem to think culture is genetic, i.e. inherent in 'blackness', which is wrong on about 13 different levels, chief among them the fact that genetic bases for 'race' and 'ethnicity' are not at all simple, let alone one that would unite the entire fucking continent of africa. the basic fundamental #101 of cultural studies is that culture is contingent and constructed.

Last edited by uziq (2020-08-09 03:42:19)

just the complete lack of any critical thinking or reflexivity is incredible. dilbert can treat 'blacks' as a monolithic culture, but that same logic doesn't work at all when you look at 'whites', neither from an economic perspective nor a cultural one. even taking neighbours like the UK and france, for example, the cultural differences are multiplicand. or, economically, comparing 'white' nations like the US with 'white' nations like the baltic states, or central europe. would dilbert treat the united states and romania as one monolithic unit (both being, broadly genetically speaking, a wide mix of european ethnicities)? i somehow doubt it. but apparently africa, a significantly larger continent with a population bloc bigger than europe and the USA combined, can be treated as one indivisible thing.

dilbert's main problem is that he is an emotional and intellectual cripple who stopped developing at about 19. he confuses reality with his total ignorance of it.

Last edited by uziq (2020-08-09 05:04:33)

because they have an equal right, enshrined in law or by constitution, to enjoy freedom in their *own* country of origin, dilbert?

'black people' aren't others from elsewhere, they have just as much legal right to citizenship as any white american. that's rather the whole fucking point, dilbert. it's not like white settlers had a massive headstart on african slaves on the north american continent, and the main part of the economic engine of the early colonies was the unpaid labour of slaves. constitutional amendments have rightfully made them equal citizens.

would you expect to be told to ‘fuck off back to england, you pommie’ every time you had a complaint or criticism of australian politics? you have a significantly weaker claim to be there than an african-american does to america. it’s not like your labour built up the australian nation, or anything. you’re a holidaying parasite in comparison.

Last edited by uziq (2020-08-09 06:43:09)

dilbert's family emigrated to australia in the last half-century ffs. remember that everytime he complains about australian politicians or the direction their society is going in. it probably has never occurred to them to 'fuck off back home' because they don't like the way the wind is blowing. that's because he takes it as an unquestioned assumption that the white man's prerogative is to go and acquire land wherever they please.

Last edited by uziq (2020-08-09 07:19:34)

i literally saved that photo waiting for an opportunity about a week ago. +1

Yes, Police make a mistake entering a number plate into their computer and stop a car for clarification

That presupposes they enter the right number in the computer.

North Yorkshire is a hell of a lot further from London than Wiltshire, if they're investigating gang crime ithey're going to wonder what a car from that far away is doing cruising around London.

Also why don't asians get searched as much if the Police are so racist?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-08-10 04:57:53)

Yes but why. Why do the Police supposedly pick on blacks more than asians?

The Police can be expected to take a look at people who are not normally resident in an area, especially if there is a period of high crime.
Did you know that up to 2009 in France the departement made up the first two digits of a number plate, allowing the police and anyone else to immediately spot someone from outside the region?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-08-10 05:05:28)

uziq wrote:

https://twitter.com/kayleegolding_/status/1292472692151590912

and why did this hardworking young home owner, a model of success if there was one, have police search her new home for 'drugs', based on zero fucking evidence whatsoever? if racism is a thing of the past, and now only mentioned by special pleading cynics? why did her neighbours even call the police or report the matter, if racism is dead and gone? what's inherently suspicious about a young woman having a nice apartment, or listening to music in the day?