BruceVC

You raise some good points, to be honest its better to be one or the other because certain fundamental views are necessary to believe one or the other and these things are mutually exclusive But of course there are some similarities Then if I had to chose then I'd be against then.I can stand behind someone calling out injustice and wrong done because of the color of ones skin, but I can't be for a group that isn't treated equally as anyone else (meaning they can do, say, act things that most would lose our lively hood over while no one is batting an eye because of mob screaming racist) and believe and acts like THEY have and had the WORSE outta anyone and everybody. They act and believe they are special snowflakes that it's more important and EVIL and wrong if it happens to them but if it happens to someone else, they are outraged because it's stealing their thunder. Why we let them act and do what they do? Because at the foundation, the BLM is like I said something we can all get behind IF it was just that. When they start demanding and screaming that they have more right and have been wronged more than anyone else in history and it doesn't count if ur history coincides with theirs with slavery and racism, it doesn't matter because it's black power over anything and everything else. Now, I will say this, in light of the Dallas shootings paired with the cop murdering those fellows, the overall mood seems to have changed. The mood feels like they finally accept they are not the only ones who have been wronged and that others have as well and acknowledging that and simply want to be heard as well, if they keep this mood and ideal and atmosphere up, then I can get behind it. Now there seems an air of equality that was massively missing. If they drop this atmosphere and continue like they have been, then no. Burn that banner in fire and start again because all it's doing is causing dividing and more destruction. Tbh it seemed the movement went to wanting special privileges and to be above equal than actually be raised to equality. What you guys are going through now with rationalizing this whole thing and creating opinions I went through about 6 years in SA where only then did I have an epiphany about the history of my country and the true nature of Apartheid It changed me forever but in a good way as I now feel more liberated about my commitment to the new South Africa but I had to learn certain things Anyway I could share them but it gets complicated, so I guess if you looking for a different perspective on BLM but in a more constructive and positive way ask me anytime in the future I've already had my realization. I grew up in a time when ud get ur ass kicked and disowned for being gay, that was very open about their disapproval and agreeing with disowning if u were in a mixed relationship, and that black people were not to be trusted, they were lazy, brought nothing but problems and the only good "*****" was really a dead "*****". I grew up believing the hate and the lies. I know first hand what these people are pissed about because I was the enemy. I may have not murdered or harmed any black person, but I was one of the many these people are angry against. Just to put it out there, I no longer believe those lies or am the "enemy". So I've been on the "giving" end before and now they are using the same tactics that we did to them. Was it right when we did it to them? Hell ****ing no. But here's a question for u Bruce, is it okay for what they are doing the same that we did to them? I'm not talking about burning on crosses, I'm talking about the political environment. You raise some good points, to be honest its better to be one or the other because certain fundamental views are necessary to believe one or the other and these things are mutually exclusive But of course there are some similarities Then if I had to chose then I'd be against then.I can stand behind someone calling out injustice and wrong done because of the color of ones skin, but I can't be for a group that isn't treated equally as anyone else (meaning they can do, say, act things that most would lose our lively hood over while no one is batting an eye because of mob screaming racist) and believe and acts like THEY have and had the WORSE outta anyone and everybody. They act and believe they are special snowflakes that it's more important and EVIL and wrong if it happens to them but if it happens to someone else, they are outraged because it's stealing their thunder. Why we let them act and do what they do? Because at the foundation, the BLM is like I said something we can all get behind IF it was just that. When they start demanding and screaming that they have more right and have been wronged more than anyone else in history and it doesn't count if ur history coincides with theirs with slavery and racism, it doesn't matter because it's black power over anything and everything else. Now, I will say this, in light of the Dallas shootings paired with the cop murdering those fellows, the overall mood seems to have changed. The mood feels like they finally accept they are not the only ones who have been wronged and that others have as well and acknowledging that and simply want to be heard as well, if they keep this mood and ideal and atmosphere up, then I can get behind it. Now there seems an air of equality that was massively missing. If they drop this atmosphere and continue like they have been, then no. Burn that banner in fire and start again because all it's doing is causing dividing and more destruction. Tbh it seemed the movement went to wanting special privileges and to be above equal than actually be raised to equality. What you guys are going through now with rationalizing this whole thing and creating opinions I went through about 6 years in SA where only then did I have an epiphany about the history of my country and the true nature of Apartheid It changed me forever but in a good way as I now feel more liberated about my commitment to the new South Africa but I had to learn certain things Anyway I could share them but it gets complicated, so I guess if you looking for a different perspective on BLM but in a more constructive and positive way ask me anytime in the future I've already had my realization. I grew up in a time when ud get ur ass kicked and disowned for being gay, that was very open about their disapproval and agreeing with disowning if u were in a mixed relationship, and that black people were not to be trusted, they were lazy, brought nothing but problems and the only good "*****" was really a dead "*****". I grew up believing the hate and the lies. I know first hand what these people are pissed about because I was the enemy. I may have not murdered or harmed any black person, but I was one of the many these people are angry against. Just to put it out there, I no longer believe those lies or am the "enemy". So I've been on the "giving" end before and now they are using the same tactics that we did to them. Was it right when we did it to them? Hell ****ing no. But here's a question for u Bruce, is it okay for what they are doing the same that we did to them? I'm not talking about burning on crosses, I'm talking about the political environment. Firstly I didnt realize you had personal experience with bigotry, it does make a difference in this type of debate because you would have more of an understanding on certain issues. Of course that doesnt mean I discount other Americans who had no experience but I generally find most white people have had normal lives ...and there is nothing wrong with that But if you dont mind going into more detail as your personal life story is interesting and I appreciate you sharing. What do you mean "you grew up believing the lies " ....were you a white supremacist? And trust me I doubt there is anything you could have done that is worse than my past and my families history due to Apartheid so no judgement at all

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/08/politics/sarah-palin-black-lives-matter/index.html The irritating and hypocritical words of Sarah Palin, she has the audacity to say "Shame on our culture's influencers who would stir contention and division that could lead to evil such as that in Dallas." Thats rich coming from an avid supporter of Trumps numerous comments that were very racially divisive and intentionally stirred contention

You raise some good points, to be honest its better to be one or the other because certain fundamental views are necessary to believe one or the other and these things are mutually exclusive But of course there are some similarities Then if I had to chose then I'd be against then. I can stand behind someone calling out injustice and wrong done because of the color of ones skin, but I can't be for a group that isn't treated equally as anyone else (meaning they can do, say, act things that most would lose our lively hood over while no one is batting an eye because of mob screaming racist) and believe and acts like THEY have and had the WORSE outta anyone and everybody. They act and believe they are special snowflakes that it's more important and EVIL and wrong if it happens to them but if it happens to someone else, they are outraged because it's stealing their thunder. Why we let them act and do what they do? Because at the foundation, the BLM is like I said something we can all get behind IF it was just that. When they start demanding and screaming that they have more right and have been wronged more than anyone else in history and it doesn't count if ur history coincides with theirs with slavery and racism, it doesn't matter because it's black power over anything and everything else. Now, I will say this, in light of the Dallas shootings paired with the cop murdering those fellows, the overall mood seems to have changed. The mood feels like they finally accept they are not the only ones who have been wronged and that others have as well and acknowledging that and simply want to be heard as well, if they keep this mood and ideal and atmosphere up, then I can get behind it. Now there seems an air of equality that was massively missing. If they drop this atmosphere and continue like they have been, then no. Burn that banner in fire and start again because all it's doing is causing dividing and more destruction. Tbh it seemed the movement went to wanting special privileges and to be above equal than actually be raised to equality. What you guys are going through now with rationalizing this whole thing and creating opinions I went through about 6 years in SA where only then did I have an epiphany about the history of my country and the true nature of Apartheid It changed me forever but in a good way as I now feel more liberated about my commitment to the new South Africa but I had to learn certain things Anyway I could share them but it gets complicated, so I guess if you looking for a different perspective on BLM but in a more constructive and positive way ask me anytime in the future

Also, do you think there's some collective group think where a person is shot and killed, a criminal record a mile long and possibly a child molester, depending on the colour of their skin will determine if there's community outrage or not? If it's a white guy, other white people may declare good riddance, scum, etc. if it's a black guy, then black people will point the finger at the cops with outrage? When I saw the video of the guy selling cd's, that was murder. But if it was a white guy with the same criminal record, would there have been so much outrage by white people? Or would we have seen white people say things like 'no loss'. I think had it been a white guy it wouldn't have even hit the media. But if it did, it would have been like most white killings by police, a combo of decrying the police for overreacting, and a "well, if he didn't have an illegal weapon..."Oerwinde you are deep thinker, you research stuff and I appreciate your perspective on topics even if we differ on some things, i would like to share something with you about this BLM movement This whole BLM is more complex but also more simpler on some levels than it may appear but I would like to ask you an important question, at the end of this current wave of BLM there are two main views (and I mean the people like us who do debate these things )most white people will have You can feel highly annoyed, possibly resentful and concerned about certain societal inconsistencies around the overall behavior of BLM You can be at ease because you understand the greater narrative of a movement like BLM, this doesnt mean you justify bad behavior it just means you have an understanding Which one would you prefer?I don't like BLM. They attack their allies, vandalize, attack charitable events and rallies, and if people don't submit to their bullying and intimidation, try to brand them as racist. They have done more to erode race relations than any other entity since the KKK.I can understand this may be your view, I'm not going to try to change your views as I consider you a reasonable person My view is about an understanding of aspects of history and the current reality of certain social conditions. But please consider this, BLM will be with us forever. Going forward it will become one of the various SJ initiatives we see and people support Dont see this as bad thing, its just a reality. So going forward as BLM gets representation in its own way throughout the world especially in Western Democracies you will be confronted by it....do you really want to constantly think about in the same light as the KKK? Are you saying I should change my view on them because the truth is uncomfortable? Because thats what it sounds like you're saying. These people hijacked a vigil for the victims of the Orlando shooting and tried to make it about race. They shouted racist rhetoric at students studying in a library, they shut down a pride parade until they agreed to expel police floats and make BLM the guests of honor. They attacked a charity fundraiser for sick kids because they wouldn't stop fundraising for sick kids to march with them about diversity in college. They shut down a Bernie Sanders rally, the one candidate arrested for marching for civil rights and who has fought for equality his whole life, because he didn't care enough about black people. If BLM could get away with it, they would be lynching white people. They are a black supremecist group founded because a cop killed a guy who robbed a store and tried to take his gun after assaulting him. If black lives matter, maybe they should focus on why the vast majority of black people are murdered by other black people. Yes and we condemn those types of actions but the group will evolve and distance itself from those actions, its a new movement and emotions are running high so you cant be surprised with a degree of zealotry So I am not asking you to not recognize the truth, I am asking you to see these developments as nuanced and should be seen in context Funny enough thats exactly what I want to avoid, you guys having to deal with another GG but this time its in RL I never knew you followed events like Gay Pride, nice one

Also, do you think there's some collective group think where a person is shot and killed, a criminal record a mile long and possibly a child molester, depending on the colour of their skin will determine if there's community outrage or not? If it's a white guy, other white people may declare good riddance, scum, etc. if it's a black guy, then black people will point the finger at the cops with outrage? When I saw the video of the guy selling cd's, that was murder. But if it was a white guy with the same criminal record, would there have been so much outrage by white people? Or would we have seen white people say things like 'no loss'. I think had it been a white guy it wouldn't have even hit the media. But if it did, it would have been like most white killings by police, a combo of decrying the police for overreacting, and a "well, if he didn't have an illegal weapon..."Oerwinde you are deep thinker, you research stuff and I appreciate your perspective on topics even if we differ on some things, i would like to share something with you about this BLM movement This whole BLM is more complex but also more simpler on some levels than it may appear but I would like to ask you an important question, at the end of this current wave of BLM there are two main views (and I mean the people like us who do debate these things )most white people will have You can feel highly annoyed, possibly resentful and concerned about certain societal inconsistencies around the overall behavior of BLM You can be at ease because you understand the greater narrative of a movement like BLM, this doesnt mean you justify bad behavior it just means you have an understanding Which one would you prefer? I don't like BLM. They attack their allies, vandalize, attack charitable events and rallies, and if people don't submit to their bullying and intimidation, try to brand them as racist. They have done more to erode race relations than any other entity since the KKK. I can understand this may be your view, I'm not going to try to change your views as I consider you a reasonable person My view is about an understanding of aspects of history and the current reality of certain social conditions. But please consider this, BLM will be with us forever. Going forward it will become one of the various SJ initiatives we see and people support Dont see this as bad thing, its just a reality. So going forward as BLM gets representation in its own way throughout the world especially in Western Democracies you will be confronted by it....do you really want to constantly think about in the same light as the KKK?

You raise some good points, to be honest its better to be one or the other because certain fundamental views are necessary to believe one or the other and these things are mutually exclusive But of course there are some similarities

It isn't anything that I haven't heard in past 21 years multiple times, even from people that know better. But it isn't really different from any other political discussion. It isn't optimal but one learns to live with it. Okay the reason is I can dispute some of what people are saying but its not worth doing unless people like you are upset So I wouldn't want you getting negative about the EU just because of some of the comments. But I know you know a lot about the EU so I would assume you wouldnt believe the negative views

Also, do you think there's some collective group think where a person is shot and killed, a criminal record a mile long and possibly a child molester, depending on the colour of their skin will determine if there's community outrage or not? If it's a white guy, other white people may declare good riddance, scum, etc. if it's a black guy, then black people will point the finger at the cops with outrage? When I saw the video of the guy selling cd's, that was murder. But if it was a white guy with the same criminal record, would there have been so much outrage by white people? Or would we have seen white people say things like 'no loss'. I think had it been a white guy it wouldn't have even hit the media. But if it did, it would have been like most white killings by police, a combo of decrying the police for overreacting, and a "well, if he didn't have an illegal weapon..." Oerwinde you are deep thinker, you research stuff and I appreciate your perspective on topics even if we differ on some things, i would like to share something with you about this BLM movement This whole BLM is more complex but also more simpler on some levels than it may appear but I would like to ask you an important question, at the end of this current wave of BLM there are two main views (and I mean the people like us who do debate these things )most white people will have You can feel highly annoyed, possibly resentful and concerned about certain societal inconsistencies around the overall behavior of BLM You can be at ease because you understand the greater narrative of a movement like BLM, this doesnt mean you justify bad behavior it just means you have an understanding Which one would you prefer?

Isn't that pretty much the nature of nation states? Not necessarily; the 19th century situation was quite artificial and the EU is effectively an attempt to go back to an even more extreme version of that situation with one 'empire'. Then, Europe was dominated by large multi ethnic empires held together, ultimately, by threat of force; military force probably does not now apply but there's certainly implied economic... leverage that can be applied. Then, even somewhere like Spain (or the aforementioned France) which had 'natural' borders that had been established, more or less, for 500 years were multiethnic, and an amalgam of even older proto-countries that theoretically at least they could revert to. That's largely not true for France nowadays except for some lingering sentiment in Brittany, but is for Spain. However, if you look at the break ups of the empires after WW1 the countries which ended up stable and surviving long term where the ones which formed 'spontaneously' via popular sentiment and which were 'historical' entities. Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia (~Bohemia) and to an extent Finland all had long term identities prior to ending up in their respective empires. Same for the organic part of the Ottoman break up too, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Romania (via Wlach/ Moldova) all had long term identities. The 'non organic' approach is always fraught with danger, as with the non organic/ imposed parts of the breaks ups of the Austro Hungarian and Ottoman empires. From that you got Yugoslavia on one hand and that cretinous artificial arbitrary mess in the middle east that still causes so much trouble on the other. That's why an imposed EU is not just a bad idea but verges on being outright dangerous. If it's going to be done it has to be done via genuine popular approval rather than just acclamation from the political elite. Otherwise it risks springing apart, and potentially springing apart violently. If use of violence to ensure formation of nation state prevents it being organic evolution then most of European nation states didn't born organically. Finland isn't really a nation state, because we are federacy of multiple nations. Elerond can I ask you two questions What laws and control exactly would you have restored to the Finnish government, you guys keep saying you have lost sovereignty so what specifically do you mean? Who are these " elites " people keep referring to...where do they live ? You ask me question that I don't know answers. You probably should aim them towards those who make those claims. Elerond on this thread there is a fair amount about of negative and incorrect information about the EU, you not getting concerned or a little depressed by the comments are you?

I was watching this earlier, it is more complex than it may appear so they need to investigate So I will say this guy was suffering from some form of PTSD, he couldn't differentiate a societal problem from some apparent orchestrated campaign that the police are actively pursing, so in other words he believed the latter

GD how would you address this type of racism? Watch the video https://www.jacarandafm.com/shows/the-complimentary-breakfast-with-rian-van-heerden/sodwana-bay-guest-house-owner-refuses-apologise-racist-comments/ You know I thought about this more and more as I was enjoying an adult beverage while watching the rain fall on my front porch last night. I think the thing that bother's me the most about this isn't that they are racist. There are racists all over the the place. You just avoid them. It's that they actually try to couch their racism in religious terms by referencing a bible verse. Anyone who really thinks the bible promotes racism isn't reading it. I guess that must be how the non violent Muslims feel when the see the BS ISIS is spouting. 100 %, I have said this several times but I dont ever judge any religion on the deeds of man As this guy is particularly reprehensible, he absolutely doesn't represent Christian values.

Isn't that pretty much the nature of nation states? Not necessarily; the 19th century situation was quite artificial and the EU is effectively an attempt to go back to an even more extreme version of that situation with one 'empire'. Then, Europe was dominated by large multi ethnic empires held together, ultimately, by threat of force; military force probably does not now apply but there's certainly implied economic... leverage that can be applied. Then, even somewhere like Spain (or the aforementioned France) which had 'natural' borders that had been established, more or less, for 500 years were multiethnic, and an amalgam of even older proto-countries that theoretically at least they could revert to. That's largely not true for France nowadays except for some lingering sentiment in Brittany, but is for Spain. However, if you look at the break ups of the empires after WW1 the countries which ended up stable and surviving long term where the ones which formed 'spontaneously' via popular sentiment and which were 'historical' entities. Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia (~Bohemia) and to an extent Finland all had long term identities prior to ending up in their respective empires. Same for the organic part of the Ottoman break up too, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Romania (via Wlach/ Moldova) all had long term identities. The 'non organic' approach is always fraught with danger, as with the non organic/ imposed parts of the breaks ups of the Austro Hungarian and Ottoman empires. From that you got Yugoslavia on one hand and that cretinous artificial arbitrary mess in the middle east that still causes so much trouble on the other. That's why an imposed EU is not just a bad idea but verges on being outright dangerous. If it's going to be done it has to be done via genuine popular approval rather than just acclamation from the political elite. Otherwise it risks springing apart, and potentially springing apart violently. If use of violence to ensure formation of nation state prevents it being organic evolution then most of European nation states didn't born organically. Finland isn't really a nation state, because we are federacy of multiple nations. Elerond can I ask you two questions What laws and control exactly would you have restored to the Finnish government, you guys keep saying you have lost sovereignty so what specifically do you mean? Who are these " elites " people keep referring to...where do they live ?

That's beyond stupid. The health, productivity and general quality-of-life benefits of love, friendship and "beauty" are very tangible and measurable. As for your quantification of love, friendship and beauty. Oh boy, i pity that mindset. What, exactly, is pitiable about the idea that the positive benefits they have on our lives is not just "in our heads", but actually tangible, measurable and provable? You're arguing with a vast body of research that says human relationships and human contact are good for you; why? To score points in a debate by letting you claim that this is some sort of abstract and fuzzy benefit that can't be quantified? ? Alum whats your view on the EU? Do you support it ....wants changes etc. ?

There is a shocking amount of misinformation from the average South African about BLM and state of racial tension in USA...well there was last night on this one talk show People think there is a state sponsored initiative to kill African Americans, so black South Africans phone in and say things like " I'm scared to go on holiday to the USA because I may get killed "

Volo I dont think you want to even try to understand BLM They are not like the KKK, lets not be silly now

Guys I am surprised people are questioning the validity and reason for BLM Its is movement that has some reasonable objectives, like all social movements it has good elements and bad elements in it Some African Americans feel marginalized within US society and BLM is a expression of this frustration, my advice is dont stress too much and let it run its course

He definitely had a very controversial past, you not wrong there

You misunderstand me, Im not apologizing for Apartheid I am not responsible but that doesn't mean I cant be part of the solution and just for the record there is much more positive stories in SA than negative so Im not claiming things are terrible at all. Sorry if I created that impression

I hear you and I have heard similar views from other US members But I still think you guys misunderstand the SA reality and our history and how Apartheid still resonates in our society Apartheid wasn't just a legal system that marginalized black people, it was a psychological social experiment and it attempted to do something almost inhuman. No race in this world could go through 50 years of what black South Africans went through without some kind of mental consequences....you cant be told everyday " you are inferior because of the color of your skin" without that impacting you I'm not sure there is another example in the recent history that is similar ?

http://ewn.co.za/2016/07/01/Ahmed-Kathrada-Foundation-reacts-to-racist-Andre-Slade They also refused service, I wish I didnt care but these types of events cause national consternation in SA People get very upset, I understand sometimes you guys think Im perhaps over-reacting but due to Apartheid we are very sensitive to this type of commentary

They basically said " in the bible its clearly stated black people are inferior to white people "...and they refused to allow any black people to stay at there guest house Again, who cares what they think? As for the guest house, do people have some kind of right to the guest house? Yes but you cant deny people services based on there race and they werent allowing black people to stay there...this would be illegal in the USA I'm sure?

GD how would you address this type of racism? Watch the video https://www.jacarandafm.com/shows/the-complimentary-breakfast-with-rian-van-heerden/sodwana-bay-guest-house-owner-refuses-apologise-racist-comments/ I'm not GD, but I'll answer anyway. What exactly is the problem? They don't approve of race mixing, so what? Is there more to this story I'm missing? They basically said " in the bible its clearly stated black people are inferior to white people "...and they refused to allow any black people to stay at there guest house

GD how would you address this type of racism? Watch the video https://www.jacarandafm.com/shows/the-complimentary-breakfast-with-rian-van-heerden/sodwana-bay-guest-house-owner-refuses-apologise-racist-comments/

Volo you not suggesting Kim Kardashian is a rapist are you? Thought it was obvious Kim Kardashian was a rapist. First time I would heard of it

Yet you seem to be quite dismayed at the thought of a unified European culture growing, expanding and subsuming national identities. Why can't we just let national identity die in peace naturally? That's beyond stupid. The health, productivity and general quality-of-life benefits of love, friendship and "beauty" are very tangible and measurable. Two reasons: 1) It's being replaced by something lower in principle, of which no one is willing defend to the death. It will not satisfy anyone and give rise to real marching right/left-wing parties and another war, which is what i want to avoid for the next generation. 2) The power is centralised if national governments shift their power to Brussels, which will end with continental size warfare unlike anything seen before. Don't fool yourself just because we currently live in relatively peaceful times that it will continue forever if you give up on nations. Both are destructive in the design and i wish to move away from it for a better future. Nation states might erode, but power has to shift to locally with their own laws, hierarchies and armies. That kind of "death" we can all get behind; I would even call it rebirth. As for your quantification of love, friendship and beauty. Oh boy, i pity that mindset. It seems to me that you think their is some kind of spiritual benefit of a nation state. Namutree whats your ideal system of government in 2016, lets so you can implement anything. What would you go for ?