5 ms·

I am not sure why this is being downvoted... People are asking above "What, however, can the man of good will do to combat this deeply rooted prejudice?". One p

I am not sure why this is being downvoted... People are asking above "What, however, can the man of good will do to combat this deeply rooted prejudice?". One prong of this prejudice is the structure of our justice system, and participating in these marches can help that.

calibraxis 12y ago
It's downvoted because it's currently the most serious and rational post on actually solving oppression. Rather than musing abstractly about some dead white scientist talking about blacks. (While taking a break from making money for investors/bosses.) Speaking of prominent white activist intellectuals, here's Chomsky's view on Einstein: "Compare Russell and Einstein, two leading figures, roughly the same generation. They agreed on the grave dangers facing humanity, but chose different ways to respond. Einstein responded by living a very comfortable life in Princeton and dedicating himself to research that he loved, taking a few moments for an occasional oracular statement. Russell responded by leading demonstrations and getting himself dragged off by the cops, writing extensively on the problems of the day, organizing war crimes trials, etc. The result? Russell was and is reviled and condemned, Einstein is admired as a saint. Should that surprise us? Not at all."
- n72 12y ago
  "some dead white scientist" You do realize Einstein was a Jew who was forced to leave Germany because of Nazism, right?
  - oso2k 12y ago
    Judaism has and always will be a religion and not an ethnicity or race.
    - lostlogin 12y ago
      Many would disagree. I'd call it both. Can you further explain? Probably not the best source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews Edit: down votes weren't mine.
    - themartorana 12y ago
      This old thing. It is wrong and has always been wrong. Quoth: "Race is a social concept used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation. First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, in the 17th century, people began to use the term to relate to observable physical (i.e. phenotypical) traits." [0] But more importantly, they are an ethnoreligious group, defined by shared ethnicity and religion. [1] So, not all Jews are Jews, and not all Jews are Jews. But the classification is not always religious. [0] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification) [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnoreligious_group http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnoreligious_group
    - EpicEng 12y ago
      Please describe the difference between racial and religious discrimination. In practice, how does it differ? It's all the same; some group doesn't like you because of who and what you are.
      - peterfirefly 12y ago
        Religions can be rely evil and bad. They often are. You choose whether to follow an evil religion. You can't choose what colour of skin you are born with or the facial bone structure. You /can/ change those things later but it is expensive, requires surgery or bad chemicals and is really unpleasant. Discriminating against religions is a completely different (and much more defensible) matter than discriminating against "race" or ethnicity.
        ZeroGravitas 12y ago
        The vast majority of people follow the dominant religion of the area they are born and/or their parents. In practice this makes it interchangeable with racism in most cases.
        peterfirefly 12y ago
        So that gives immigrants a get out of jail free-card? One that converts don't have?
        peterfirefly 12y ago
        s/rely/really/ :(
- dreamdu5t 12y ago
  Chomsky is a hypocritical weasel. Einstein isn't admired because he chose a life of research... he's admired because of his research. Russel is also incredibly admired, then and now.
  - ChristianBundy 12y ago
    Can you explain why he's hypocritical?
    - lukifer 12y ago
      I think the assumption is that Chomsky is villifying Einstein for not doing enough, when in fact he's villifying a culture (both in and out of academia) that punishes those who go too far afield with radical ideas. Hence, why this seems hypocritical: Chomsky made his trade-off, and continues to enjoy a comfortable professor's life. I think it's fair to say that Chomsky has done far more political activism in his life than Einstein, but far less than Russell.
- gumby 12y ago
  > "Russell was and is reviled and condemned" Well, by the John Birchers and the like, but he also won the Nobel (in literature, of all things) and was quite influential among people who would not have understood the Principia Mathematica. I think Chomsky is way off base here.
smsm42 12y ago
I share deep concern about police militarization and police brutality. These problems have been raised for years, particularly in the context of War on Drugs, but also in larger context of alienation of population from the government, and were largely ignored by the wide public, happy to be "tough on crime" and laughing at those libertarian idiots with their obviously exaggerated concerns. It is good thing that the topic finally starts to enter the public conscience and that people start to realize there should be strict limits to government power in general and the police power as the most frequently encountered one in particular. I share the sentiment expressed here: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6557 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6557 about the deep problems that exist and I think it's good people start to realize these problems exist. I think also here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/03/framing-for-light-instead-of-heat/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/03/framing-for-light-inste... it outlines some of the problems people need to be aware of when looking for solutions. But when I read recent reports about arson, looting, windows smashed, trash cans overturned and lit on fire, businesses destroyed, police officers assaulted with rocks, explosives and firebombs, millions of damages caused, when I read about "burn that bitch down" - I think maybe this particular instance is not what I want to be part of at all. Maybe associating with this wouldn't do as much to combat either public perception of police needing to be tough or any particular prejudices. And then I read something like this: http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/10/a-college-president-had-to-apologize-for http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/10/a-college-president-had-to... and this https://twitter.com/onekade/status/543202210516303872/photo/1 https://twitter.com/onekade/status/543202210516303872/photo/... and honestly, I don't know what to think.
- Xeoncross 12y ago
  Every time there is a legitimate concern about a possible current/future problem, it seems something happens to either dismiss - or divide those against it. It's really an interesting phenomenon. Most people believe truth is relative though, so I guess it's not logically surprising that there is no consensus.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    I'm not sure what "the truth is relative" means. Do you claim that some event may have happened or not happened depending on your point of view - I mean, really happened or not happened, not just our knowledge of it could be possibly wrong or incomplete? I'd say "citation needed" on the claim that most people believe in such thing.

calibraxis 12y ago

It's downvoted because it's currently the most serious and rational post on actually solving oppression. Rather than musing abstractly about some dead white scientist talking about blacks. (While taking a break from making money for investors/bosses.) Speaking of prominent white activist intellectuals, here's Chomsky's view on Einstein: "Compare Russell and Einstein, two leading figures, roughly the same generation. They agreed on the grave dangers facing humanity, but chose different ways to respond. Einstein responded by living a very comfortable life in Princeton and dedicating himself to research that he loved, taking a few moments for an occasional oracular statement. Russell responded by leading demonstrations and getting himself dragged off by the cops, writing extensively on the problems of the day, organizing war crimes trials, etc. The result? Russell was and is reviled and condemned, Einstein is admired as a saint. Should that surprise us? Not at all."

n72 12y ago
"some dead white scientist" You do realize Einstein was a Jew who was forced to leave Germany because of Nazism, right?
- oso2k 12y ago
  Judaism has and always will be a religion and not an ethnicity or race.
  - lostlogin 12y ago
    Many would disagree. I'd call it both. Can you further explain? Probably not the best source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews Edit: down votes weren't mine.
  - themartorana 12y ago
    This old thing. It is wrong and has always been wrong. Quoth: "Race is a social concept used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation. First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, in the 17th century, people began to use the term to relate to observable physical (i.e. phenotypical) traits." [0] But more importantly, they are an ethnoreligious group, defined by shared ethnicity and religion. [1] So, not all Jews are Jews, and not all Jews are Jews. But the classification is not always religious. [0] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification) [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnoreligious_group http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnoreligious_group
  - EpicEng 12y ago
    Please describe the difference between racial and religious discrimination. In practice, how does it differ? It's all the same; some group doesn't like you because of who and what you are.
    - peterfirefly 12y ago
      Religions can be rely evil and bad. They often are. You choose whether to follow an evil religion. You can't choose what colour of skin you are born with or the facial bone structure. You /can/ change those things later but it is expensive, requires surgery or bad chemicals and is really unpleasant. Discriminating against religions is a completely different (and much more defensible) matter than discriminating against "race" or ethnicity.
      - ZeroGravitas 12y ago
        The vast majority of people follow the dominant religion of the area they are born and/or their parents. In practice this makes it interchangeable with racism in most cases.
        peterfirefly 12y ago
        So that gives immigrants a get out of jail free-card? One that converts don't have?
      - peterfirefly 12y ago
        s/rely/really/ :(
dreamdu5t 12y ago
Chomsky is a hypocritical weasel. Einstein isn't admired because he chose a life of research... he's admired because of his research. Russel is also incredibly admired, then and now.
- ChristianBundy 12y ago
  Can you explain why he's hypocritical?
  - lukifer 12y ago
    I think the assumption is that Chomsky is villifying Einstein for not doing enough, when in fact he's villifying a culture (both in and out of academia) that punishes those who go too far afield with radical ideas. Hence, why this seems hypocritical: Chomsky made his trade-off, and continues to enjoy a comfortable professor's life. I think it's fair to say that Chomsky has done far more political activism in his life than Einstein, but far less than Russell.
gumby 12y ago
> "Russell was and is reviled and condemned" Well, by the John Birchers and the like, but he also won the Nobel (in literature, of all things) and was quite influential among people who would not have understood the Principia Mathematica. I think Chomsky is way off base here.

smsm42 12y ago

I share deep concern about police militarization and police brutality. These problems have been raised for years, particularly in the context of War on Drugs, but also in larger context of alienation of population from the government, and were largely ignored by the wide public, happy to be "tough on crime" and laughing at those libertarian idiots with their obviously exaggerated concerns. It is good thing that the topic finally starts to enter the public conscience and that people start to realize there should be strict limits to government power in general and the police power as the most frequently encountered one in particular. I share the sentiment expressed here: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6557 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6557 about the deep problems that exist and I think it's good people start to realize these problems exist. I think also here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/03/framing-for-light-instead-of-heat/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/03/framing-for-light-inste... it outlines some of the problems people need to be aware of when looking for solutions. But when I read recent reports about arson, looting, windows smashed, trash cans overturned and lit on fire, businesses destroyed, police officers assaulted with rocks, explosives and firebombs, millions of damages caused, when I read about "burn that bitch down" - I think maybe this particular instance is not what I want to be part of at all. Maybe associating with this wouldn't do as much to combat either public perception of police needing to be tough or any particular prejudices. And then I read something like this: http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/10/a-college-president-had-to-apologize-for http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/10/a-college-president-had-to... and this https://twitter.com/onekade/status/543202210516303872/photo/1 https://twitter.com/onekade/status/543202210516303872/photo/... and honestly, I don't know what to think.

Xeoncross 12y ago
Every time there is a legitimate concern about a possible current/future problem, it seems something happens to either dismiss - or divide those against it. It's really an interesting phenomenon. Most people believe truth is relative though, so I guess it's not logically surprising that there is no consensus.
- smsm42 12y ago
  I'm not sure what "the truth is relative" means. Do you claim that some event may have happened or not happened depending on your point of view - I mean, really happened or not happened, not just our knowledge of it could be possibly wrong or incomplete? I'd say "citation needed" on the claim that most people believe in such thing.