Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
skillzdadirecta

Television Surviving R. Kelly

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

The behavior is explainable but I don't know if it's understandable. I'm Pakistani and Muslim and brown in America and I would never do what you've outlined. I understand their anger but I do not understand the follow through in making a huge, obvious mistake. 

It's both explainable AND understandable.

 

Dare I might suggest that its justifiable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, sblfilms said:

 

1. I think these things are synonyms

 

2. and get out of town with the notion that Pakistani Muslims have had remotely similar experiences with the American criminal justice system as black people in this country. There is literally an amendment to the constiution that was created to ensure black people could still be enslaved post emancipation. It’s not the same thing as the general awfulness to other brown people groups. The criminal justice system is designed to harm black people specifically.

 

I still love you <3

 

They may be synonyms but in this context they mean different things.

 

Haha, let me be clear. I was speaking broadly, not about the criminal justice system specifically. In that I agree, but illogical decisions are never understandable is what I meant. :) 

 

I also love you! :mhug:

 

11 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

It's both explainable AND understandable.

 

Dare I might suggest that its justifiable.

 

Uhhh . . . if two wrongs don't make a right, how is it understandable or justifiable? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

Uhhh . . . if two wrongs don't make a right, how is it understandable or justifiable? 

Because I reject the entire premise that "two wrongs don't make a right" from the outset :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Because I reject the entire premise that "two wrongs don't make a right" from the outset :p

 

But on what basis are you rejecting that premise? How is fighting injustice by intentionally letting guilty people go free help anyone at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

But on what basis are you rejecting that premise? How is fighting injustice by intentionally letting guilty people go free help anyone at all?

The basis that every such action represents a strike -- no matter how minor -- against an unjust system that given enough time and enough of these strikes will cause either a questioning of that system and why these actions occur which will lead either to its reform or overthrow.

 

Hell, I can even go all Hobbes here and state that because the standards of justice have been violated so consistently and so blatantly that it is absolutely "right" that they are transgressed and subverted at every opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

The basis that every such action represents a strike -- no matter how minor -- against an unjust system that given enough time and enough of these strikes will cause either a questioning of that system and why these actions occur which will lead either to its reform or overthrow.

 

Hell, I can even go all Hobbes here and state that because the standards of justice have been violated so blatantly and consistently that it is absolutely "right" that they are transgressed and subverted at every opportunity.

I agree with that on an ideological level, especially in this instance, but how does a society practice this on an everyday, individual level? 

 

To clarify, that question isn't snark. And I already preemptively regret getting involved in this conversation but this I am curious about as I've wondered about it myself before. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

The basis that every such action represents a strike -- no matter how minor -- against an unjust system that given enough time and enough of these strikes will cause either a questioning of that system and why these actions occur which will lead either to its reform or overthrow.

 

Hell, I can even go all Hobbes here and state that because the standards of justice have been violated so consistently and so blatantly that it is absolutely "right" that they are transgressed and subverted at every opportunity.

 

That makes no sense because its effectiveness is completely nullified because it gives the wrong side everything they need to perpetuate the institutionalized, systemic injustice which is the very thing we're trying to stop.

 

If we're talking about effect, it hasn't worked yet (things around doing the wrong decision have; say, like, videos of cops killing minorities blatantly), nor could a normal society function if we lived by this principle because it is based on emotion and not objectivity. Who and where do we draw the line between justified and just simply someone(s) spite? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bloodporne said:

I agree with that on an ideological level, especially in this instance, but how does a society practice this on an everyday, individual level? 

No idea - and it's really not my problem to solve :p

 

You probably can't effectively implement it on an individual level which means that is should be reserved for actions against systemic actors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

That makes no sense because its effectiveness is completely nullified because it gives the wrong side everything they need to perpetuate the institutionalized, systemic injustice which is the very thing we're trying to stop.

 

If we're talking about effect, it hasn't worked yet (things around doing the wrong decision have, say, like, videos of cops killing minorities blatantly), nor could a normal society function if we lived by this principle because it is based on emotion and not objectivity. Who and where do we draw the line between justified and spite? 

So what if it gives the other side what it wants to perpetuate the system?  Why should those adversely impacted by the system be even remotely concerned about what they feel or do?  

 

I'll straight up say that the consequences of such actions on the functioning of a so-called "normal society" don't factor into my positions at all.  I consider it to be an unnecessary, irrelevant constraint on thought that only perpetuates the repetition of unthinking bromides like "two wrongs don't make a right".

 

As for the line between justified and spite?  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  Like everything else in this existence, it's in the eye of the beholder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish the rockstars who have been obsessed with 13 year old girls got the same attention as R Kelly 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

I wish the rockstars who have been obsessed with 13 year old girls got the same attention as R Kelly 

You want to the heroes of white boomers to be punished?!?!  HOW DARE YOU, SIR?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

So what if it gives the other side what it wants to perpetuate the system?  Why should those adversely impacted by the system be even remotely concerned about what they feel or do?  

 

I'll straight up say that the consequences of such actions on the functioning of a so-called "normal society" don't factor into my positions at all.  I consider it to be an unnecessary, irrelevant constraint on thought that only perpetuates the repetition of unthinking bromides like "two wrongs don't make a right".

 

As for the line between justified and spite?  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  Like everything else in this existence, it's in the eye of the beholder.

 

First of all, I don't agree with any unthinking bromides. I merely used that expression as a shorthand in this instance, so let me be clear you shouldn't equate my position with that expression. 

 

The adversely impacted should be concerned because reinforcing the ability of those who can perpetuate the system is the very reason they continue to be adversely impacted, and thus maybe it's a bad idea to give that side more justification to continue to harm those adversely impacted. The logic through-line there is clear - helping those perpetuate the very system that is harming you is very, very stupid, unless I'm misunderstanding your position.

 

In what way was exonerating O.J., for instance (when he was likely guilty), more helpful than harmful to black people? Sure, O.J. at the time was happy, so lucky for him, but I'm speaking broadly. That happened in 1995, it's 2018, and yet injustice against black people is at a peak, and the other side uses O.J. Simpson's verdict as ammo to show that black people are only out for themselves, like all minorities, and that's why white people should be afraid.

 

A society can't function even remotely well based on "the eye of the beholder" and never has. The only reason society barely functions now is because of the very thing you are arguing against. Given you live in that very society, and thus by proxy benefit from it, you inherently must factor such actions into your positions - to do otherwise is selfish and, more importantly, harmful to others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

The adversely impacted should be concerned because reinforcing the ability of those who can perpetuate the system is the very reason they continue to be adversely impacted, and thus maybe it's a bad idea to give that side more justification to continue to harm those adversely impacted. The logic through-line there is clear - helping those perpetuate the very system that is harming you is very, very stupid, unless I'm misunderstanding your position.

 

In what way was exonerating O.J., for instance (when he was likely guilty), more helpful than harmful to black people? Sure, O.J. at the time was happy, so lucky for him, but I'm speaking broadly. That happened in 1995, it's 2018, and yet injustice against black people is at a peak, and the other side uses O.J. Simpson's verdict as ammo to show that black people are only out for themselves, like all minorities, and that's why white people should be afraid.

The inherent nature of society means that the "other side" is going to do what it's going to do regardless of what the adversely impacted/marginalized groups do to reconcile the situation.  As such, the marginalized group might as well exercise what little agency it possesses within the existing societal context to subvert the unjust system.  And why the hell does the burden have to be on the marginalized groups anyway?  This line of reasoning is pretty much the same nonsense as "don't punch Nazis because you might scare someone into becoming a Nazi."

 

You're viewing the relative helpfulness/harmfulness of the OJ verdict from an external, non-black perspective.  In order for us to properly evaluate it, it is the black community that has to provide that commentary as to whether the "benefits" of his political exoneration (if there are any) were worth the "cost" (if there are any).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

Given you live in that very society, and thus by proxy benefit from it, you inherently must factor such actions into your positions - to do otherwise is selfish and, more importantly, harmful to others. 

I'm not seeing the problem here :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

The inherent nature of society means that the "other side" is going to do what it's going to do regardless of what the adversely impacted/marginalized groups do to reconcile the situation.  As such, the marginalized group might as well exercise what little agency it possesses within the existing societal context to subvert the unjust system.  And why the hell does the burden have to be on the marginalized groups anyway?  This line of reasoning is pretty much the same nonsense as "don't punch Nazis because you might scare someone into becoming a Nazi."

 

You're viewing the relative helpfulness/harmfulness of the OJ verdict from an external, non-black perspective.  In order for us to properly evaluate it, it is the black community that has to provide that commentary as to whether the "benefits" of his political exoneration (if there are any) were worth the "cost" (if there are any).

 

Your analogy about punching Nazi's doesn't make sense because you shouldn't punch Nazi's for simply existing - they should be punched if they are doing something worthy of punching. Again, objectivity. It is not the person, but the acts that determine the consequences.

 

Similarly, I'm not putting any burden on marginalized groups. White people shouldn't exonerate their own either when they know a white person is guilty either. Again, objectivity. If the systemic injustice is a burden, there are plenty of effective ways to combat that without having to be hypocritical about it. 

 

And the other side is going to do what it's going to do, but we can remain consistent and fair and objective and give them as little fodder as possible. It's worked before (Ghandi, Martin Luther King) in terms of getting a strong message across and I'm all for strength and resistance but that can be done without shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

America put many of my kind into Guantanamo Bay but I'm not trying to argue for spiteful, hypocritical actions. The black community can provide whatever commentary it wants, but you can't ever say you have a specific right to commit an injustice regardless - because it can be used against you if not followed by all because actions have consequences and if black people broadly kept exonerating their own though guilty, white people would even moreso do the same - it's escalation. Again, there are other effective, fair ways to fight them (I'm all for punching Nazi's if they are doing something that needs them to be punched, so let's be clear on that) so doing this is pointless anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

So what if it gives the other side what it wants to perpetuate the system?  Why should those adversely impacted by the system be even remotely concerned about what they feel or do?  

 

I'll straight up say that the consequences of such actions on the functioning of a so-called "normal society" don't factor into my positions at all.  I consider it to be an unnecessary, irrelevant constraint on thought that only perpetuates the repetition of unthinking bromides like "two wrongs don't make a right".

 

As for the line between justified and spite?  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  Like everything else in this existence, it's in the eye of the beholder.

Spoken like a true Supreme High Chancellor! Why you're not in politics is beyond me based on the bolded. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

Your analogy about punching Nazi's doesn't make sense because you shouldn't punch Nazi's for simply existing - they should be punched if they are doing something worthy of punching. Again, objectivity. It is not the person, but the acts that determine the consequences.

We have a fundamental irreconcilable disagreement as I have no real issue with "punishing" an individual for their beliefs absent overt actions if I consider their existence to be exceptionally odious.

 

17 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

And the other side is going to do what it's going to do, but we can remain consistent and fair and objective and give them as little fodder as possible. It's worked before (Ghandi, Martin Luther King) in terms of getting a strong message across and I'm all for strength and resistance but that can be done without shooting ourselves in the foot.

I KNEW someone would trot out the Gandhi/King examples.  In the case of Gandhi, he had the benefit of a severely weakened British Empire in the aftermath of WWII that was far too spent economically, politically, and militarily to hold on the Raj.  I can assure you that a more radical, violent Indian leader would have attained the same objectives, if not quicker.  As for King, I think that we're having this conversation pretty much is self-explanatory as to the my assessment of the overall effectiveness of that type of political action.

 

17 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

you can't ever say you have a specific right to commit an injustice regardless - because it can be used against you if not followed by all because actions have consequences

Since when is the existence of a "right" predicated on the consequences of its exercise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bloodporne said:

 Why you're not in politics is beyond me based on the bolded. 

The world is not ready for my genius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

We have a fundamental irreconcilable disagreement as I have no real issue with "punishing" an individual for their beliefs absent overt actions if I consider their existence to be exceptionally odious.

 

I KNEW someone would trot out the Gandhi/King examples.  In the case of Gandhi, he had the benefit of a severely weakened British Empire in the aftermath of WWII that was far too spent economically, politically, and militarily to hold on the Raj.  I can assure you that a more radical, violent Indian leader would have attained the same objectives, if not quicker.  As for King, I think that we're having this conversation pretty much is self-explanatory.

 

Since when is the existence of a "right" predicated on the consequences of its exercise?

 

Exceptionally odious? If it's odious enough, it would be made illegal, or should be, and you can legislate that, rather than punch them in the face. You see, a more effective and broader means that allows the (hopefully) majority speak on it as a society. 

 

Of course there is historical context for any person's effective actions. So? The point is it works. Peacefully sitting in diners as a means of revolt in America worked. Letting guilty black people go free isn't effective. So why bother to do it? You can argue that a more radical, violent Indian leader would have attained the same objectives, if not quicker, but that's irrelevant because that's not what happened and it worked. If it works, why bother with any alternatives?

 

The existence of a right only exists because of the consequences of its exercise, because that's what keeps this thing going. I don't care if you call it a right or not, the point being that negative actions perpetuating negative consequences is stupid and, more importantly, not helpful, so why behave that way? Asking honestly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

Peacefully sitting in diners as a means of revolt in America worked. Letting guilty black people go free isn't effective. 

It worked to a point and then the majority society said "OK, that's quite enough for you now - you've gone far enough."  If the outcome is going to be varying degrees of negative no matter the "legitimacy" of the tactics used, the marginalized groups might as well exercise their agency where and when they can, up to and including potentially "ineffective" means.

 

13 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

I don't care if you call it a right or not, the point being that negative actions perpetuating negative consequences is stupid and, more importantly, not helpful, so why behave that way? Asking honestly. 

By this has been phrased, there is a lot of room for exercising value judgments in evaluating whether "negative" actions are "stupid" or "unhelpful" or even "negative" to begin with.  This is even further compounded when potentially "negative" consequences are diffused over a population large enough that a single individual may never experience them in any tangible way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

It worked to a point and then the majority society said "OK, that's quite enough for you now - you've gone far enough."  If the outcome is going to be varying degrees of negative no matter the "legitimacy" of the tactics used, the marginalized groups might as well exercise their agency where and when they can, up to and including potentially "ineffective" means.

 

By this has been phrased, there is a lot of room for exercising value judgments in evaluating whether "negative" actions are "stupid" or "unhelpful" or even "negative" to begin with.  This is even further compounded when potentially "negative" consequences are diffused over a population large enough that a single individual may never experience them in any tangible way.  

 

Not sure how what Ghandi did was "varying degrees of negative"? That's terrible framing. Positive forward progress, even if it's never enough, is still a good thing, surely?

 

I agree what constitutes "negative" is arguable. I'm arguing that letting known guilty [insert person] go free is not a good idea. You disagree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

I'm arguing that letting known guilty [insert person] go free is not a good idea. You disagree?

In theory, it's not a good idea at all.

In practice, there's a helluva lot of context depending on circumstances to consider that transcends the theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

In theory, it's not a good idea at all.

 

In practice, there's a helluva lot of context depending on circumstances to consider that transcends the theory

 

I agree context matters but on what basis is contravening "don't let guilty people go free" that helpful though, especially when there are alternatives that are effective to combat systemic injustice?

 

Note I am not saying letting guilty people who deserve to go free be let free (that's a different discussion), I'm discussing guilty people who are truly guilty and if not for the color of their skin would otherwise definitely be put in prison.

 

I guess Bill Cosby should go free according to your logic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I agree context matters but on what basis is contravening "don't let guilty people go free" that helpful though, especially when there are alternatives that are effective to combat systemic injustice?

 

Note I am not saying letting guilty people who deserve to go free be let free (that's a different discussion), I'm discussing guilty people who are truly guilty and if not for the color of their skin would otherwise definitely be put in prison.

 

I guess Bill Cosby should go free according to your logic?

Bill Cosby (or by extension OJ Simpson) going free wouldn't fit within the context of what I view as a "legitimate" subversion of the system through the acquittal of a blatantly guilty individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Bill Cosby (or by extension OJ Simpson) going free wouldn't fit within the context of what I view as a "legitimate" subversion of the system through the acquittal of a blatantly guilty individual.

 

But that's what we've been discussing - black juries letting guilty black people go free, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

But that's what we've been discussing - black juries letting guilty black people go free. 

We've been discussing the issue in the abstract - when we get into specifics, there are contextual differences that make such actions more "legitimate" than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

We've been discussing the issue in the abstract - when we get into specifics, there are contextual differences that make such actions more "legitimate" than others.

 

Then I'm more curious than in disagreement - which contexts are more or less legitimate to you, and which black juries will be able to determine when it is and isn't legitimate, and how do the rest of us trust that? The presumption being we know they are guilty for a fact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Then I'm more curious than in disagreement - which contexts are more or less legitimate to you, and which black juries will be able to determine when it is and isn't legitimate, and how do the rest of us trust that?

The most obvious one for me that would be a "legitimate" subversion would be a black jury acquittal of a black man accused of killing a cop where the evidence points to his guilt "without a reasonable doubt".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

The most obvious one for me that would be a "legitimate" subversion would be a black jury acquittal of a black man accused of killing a cop where the evidence points to his guilt "without a reasonable doubt".

 

If they're willing to acquit him, then there was reasonable doubt though? Are you saying in a clear instance of no doubt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

If they're willing to acquit him, then there was reasonable doubt though?

Technically speaking, that would be the justification, but we can easily imagine a situation where the evidence in all its forms does point to guilt and the jury ignores that evidence to make a "political" point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SFLUFAN said:

Technically speaking, that would be the justification, but we can easily imagine a situation where the evidence in all its forms does point to guilt.

 

Let's say in this hypothetical that were true - is there any real case where this has happened? Because this conversation started from real life cases like O.J.'s and others, which you agreed black juries should not acquit on.

 

Is there some real case instance you're thinking of that fits your very specific hypothetical where it's okay to aqcuit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think drug cases are definitely ones in which black jurors may let a guilty man go as an act of dissent against a system that has abused black people repeatedly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I think drug cases are definitely ones in which black jurors may let a guilty man go as an act of dissent against a system that has abused black people repeatedly.

 

I could agree for non-violent drug offenses, though I still think twisting an objective system in pursuit of fixing a broken system in general strikes me as not the best strategy compared to other forms one could do as acts of dissent. You don't want to bias our attempts at an objective legal system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Let's say in this hypothetical that were true - is there any real case where this has happened? Because this conversation started from real life cases like O.J.'s and others, which you agreed black juries should not acquit on.

 

Is there some real case instance you're thinking of that fits your very specific hypothetical where it's okay to aqcuit?

I have absolutely zero real-world examples that come to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like most cases in this country go to trial...:lol:

 

Most cases are plead out and the accused is convicted, we're not the number 1 jailers on the planet for nothing. And this notion that there's this epidemic of black juries letting guilty people go free is just stupid and I'm not even sure why it came up in this topic. R Kelly wasn't acquitted because he was black and had a black jury.  He was acquitted because he was rich,  was able to stall the trial as a strategic move and then silence the victim and her family.  THAT'S why he got off in spite of the testimony from other victims of his who were written off because they were black and Hispanic women that society undervalues AND the onus of proving sexual assault is always on the women despite the color of her skin or her socioeconomic background... as the Kavanaugh hearings showed. This side bar discussion has been amusing, but its completely besides the point for this very topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...