Sure, but not in this thread (hijacking).
Generally, it’s in the direction that Bernie Sanders and others have proposed we move immediately, or better yet a century ago.
Still doesn’t seem to me like declaring failure; just like saying we need to change tactics.
If you start a thread to specify, I’ll take a look at it.
We’ve been changing tactics for 247 years, and making little to no progress. I’m talking about calling that process a failure, and making sweeping changes immediately. That is much more than just “changing tactics.”
As has been said already multiple times in this thread, we’ve made quite a bit of progress. We haven’t ended the argument, or removed the danger, no. But I suspect that can’t be done without some drastic change in the human species. Otherwise, we’re just going to have to keep working on it; and it’s going to remain necessary to do so.
and said incorrectly, in my view.
Sure, there’s bound to be some changes in 247 years, no getting around that. But if, as I posit, the single largest problem “the American Experiment” faced was that of white supremacy, we’ve had more than enough time to eradicate the problem, in my view. Much more than is needed. The problem, as I see it, is that we don’t really want to eradicate the problem, or at the least are complacent about continuing to use the ineffective tactics we’ve been using. So I call the American Experiment a failure, and call on us to use radically, fundamentally, essentially different tactics to achieve that end.
To me, it’s like you’re saying “OK, slavery was a problem but we fixed it, so the experiment is a success,” which I find simplistic and reductive. To me, it’s much more like “Slavery has been outlawed but now instead of slavery we have black people being persecuted, impoverished, routinely arrested and murdered by police, oppressed and openly despised by a vocal minority of Americans.” That’s progress of a sort, but it’s very far from a success.
I might have come around to your position if in 2016, the GOP nominated Trump but instead of winning narrowly, he had gotten beaten so soundly that no political party would ever again consider nominating anyone so openly racist and insane again. But since he won in 2016, and the lesson the GOP has learned is “We ought to nominate him again,” I think I’ve won this argument.
Huh? Your ‘paraphrase’ completely twisted and misrepresented what I was saying, which was also pointed out by two other dopers (thanks @Thudlow_Boink and @Banquet_Bear). So this is not just my opinion.
I suppose I shouldn’t have sunk to your level by calling you ‘delusional’ and your attempts to mischaracterize me ‘clumsy’. I feel like I’m better than that, so I apologize for that. But I was pissed at your twisting my words so egregiously. And now, I’m frankly baffled at your continuing hostility toward me. As I also said (a part of my previous post you conveniently forgot to quote) I’ve found you to be a reasonable poster in other threads, which makes your incorrect stance and continued hostility toward me all the more baffling. And it’s now day two of this, so it’s not like you were just having a bad day yesterday. I hope you feel better soon, and / or get the help you need.
No hostility at all to you personally. I simply disagree with the position you’ve taken here. I’m 180 degrees away from it.
Thanks for your friendly response to my other posts in the past, and hopefully in the future.
It’s amusing that you won’t specify how I’ve misrepresented you, or even challenge my guesses as to your reasoning process, but simply rely on the support of two (count 'em! Two! an overwhelming number!) other posters who take your side, also without any specific evidence of my paraphrase being in any way inaccurate. If I’m wrong about any suppositions I’ve made about your reasoning process, please let me know exactly how. Until then I will continue to conclude as I’ve concluded, and remain 180 degrees in the opposite direction.
Ugh. I don’t feel like I need to explain myself to someone who is taking such an unreasonable and yes, hostile stance toward me. What I said, and your ridiculous mischaracterization of what I said, speaks for itself in the posts upthread. If you read back what I said and your response, and still don’t realize how in the wrong you are, it’s not like anything I could say further would sway your opinion at all at this point, and honestly I don’t think enough of you anymore to make the effort.
Not a position I can respect much, sorry.
I do think the underlying problem here is that this ultimately isn’t a debatable OP. You hold your position, whatever that is (I’m fated to die wondering, I suppose) and I hold mine, but there are no metrics for what exactly constitutes a success or a failure, so we’re just disagreeing without knowing what we’re disagreeing about.
If I were a Mod (and my application for Modship is still pending, you’ll be glad to know) I woulda just chucked this one into IMHO right out of the box but I’m no sort of Mod so we will have to live with it being classified as a Great Debate when it’s actually IMO neither great nor a debate.
How long should it reasonably take to eradicate white supremacy? I admit, I have no clue. Are there lots of other places it has been done, that we can get some data from?
I admit, it’s still a serious problem. But I think more progress has been made than you realize. My impression is that, say, 200 years ago the vast majority of white people held views that could be considered “white supremacist.”
We’ve been hearing a lot recently about the kinds of things you mention—about Black people being harassed and murdered by police, for example. Is this sort of thing happening more now, or has it always been happening, but quietly, under the radar, and is just being publicized more now—which, if not progress, is a lead-up to progress? This, again, I don’t know.
My plan? Where have I seen those words?
Though America has not failed, it has things it needs to improve. You are right that taking the “America is number one” attitude in all things disincentivizes working on problems. But America is very good at sone things.
Oh, good lord.
Are you serious? I’m afraid you are.
After almost 250 years of slavery, lynching, harassment, oppression, discrimination, and general cruelty, you think that black people’s issues MIGHT be gaining more publicity now, and that MAY lead SOMEDAY far into a future you and I will never see is–progress? You cannot be serious.
You may address me as “slicedalone.”
Yes, those things still happen. A little more often today than in 2015. But a lot less than in 1955, and a whole heck of a lot less than in 1885.
Let’s take a simple analogy to explain where I’m coming from. Let’s take a a person who currently is a a couch potato and eats junk food. This person decides they want to become a competitive weightlifter and has a goal of bench pressing 300 pounds. Let’s say the can currently only lift 100 pounds. They start a good exercise regimen, eat healthy, and 6 months later they can lift 200 pounds, but then they suffer a shoulder strain and have to cut back to 160 pounds. It’s possible that person might say “I’m a failure” and give up, sliding back to there old ways of eating junk and being a couch potato. But they also have the option of rehabbing that injury, continuing their healthy habits, and maybe another year later they can now lift 275 pounds. They’re still not at their goal, but I wouldn’t call what they’re doing a failure. I’d characterize that as a success story that just happens to not have yet reached the end of the story.
Heh? Yes, that is your avatar handle. How else would I address you?!?
I don’t think the way you’re conducting yourself in this thread is helping your potential modship status any.
Bigotry is not going to be eradicated from humans as long as we are still this species. It can be mostly eradicated from some individuals. It can be written out of laws. It can change in form, to pick on a different group and/or on groups defined differently. It can be quashed, mostly, from public expression.
But bigotry is buried deep in the species and three hundred years is an eyeblink. If we survive for three million – a largish if – maybe our descendents won’t have it. But, if not, they may be our descendents; but they won’t be us. They’ll be a somewhat different species.
In the meantime, we just have to keep fighting the manifestations; in ourselves, and in our societies. Over and over and over again. Otherwise we certainly aren’t going to make it to three million and we probably won’t have any descendents; and we’ll probably take a whole lot of other creatures with us.
Not what I’m saying at all; and it seems to me that I’ve explained that, utterly clearly, multiple times in this thread. I’ll try once more. What I’m saying is that the experiment is continuing. It isn’t over; so it hasn’t failed. That doesn’t mean it has once-and-for-all succeeded. That probably isn’t possible – but failing to attain the impossible doesn’t mean either that nothing’s been accomplished, or that nothing further can be.
ISTM that you are a bit too invested in making this about “winning the argument”.
You had addressed me as your “good lord”–I’m just telling you that there’s no need to be so formal.
Please tell me you didn’t take my comment about applying for a Modship seriously. I haven’t and never will.
But to be dead-serious for a moment, I would like to drop this part of the discussion, about your being offended by my paraphrase and my questioning the basis for your offense. If you’d like to discuss it further, please open up a Pit thread and I will let you have it there. But this isn’t a suitable vein for “Great Debates” and this isn’t much of a debate in the first place–as I said before, it’s much more suitable for In My Humble Opinion, IMHO.
it isn’t enough of an argument for anyone to be very proud about winning.