I saw a darkie breaking into the house across the street...Follow

I'm not saying one should blindly accept the system as is, but the motivating factor when pushing for social reform should be to make the system better. If you have to actively defy the existing system in order to force a change in that system, that's great - it's laudable that you believe in the change so wholeheartedly - but don't go around saying that conforming is bad and we should be a spanner in the works as a matter of principle. You don't want to get rid of systems. You want an ideal, better system that will work to your interests. So don't say "conforming is bad." Say "this-and-that is bad and we should conform to something different."

That's why statements like "conforming is bad" seem retarded to me. Everyone conforms. We're wired to conform; the loners who didn't form tribes and societies got bred out by the guys who did. Our motivation should be to conform to a good model, not to fight the flow just because it's flowing and we don't like being pushed.

Edit: Also, you got that mock Varus post up there slightly wrong. He uses a comma at the end of the other guy's name, not a colon.

The creepy bit is that this was what actually twigged me that it wasn't Varus writing before I looked at the name.

Edited, Jul 29th 2009 12:10pm by zepoodle

What Kavekk said was right, but you should be aware that it isn't what you said.

Conforming is NOT cool.

Have you ever really studied the civil rights movement, zepoodle, beyond the distortions that the right gives about MLK to criticize POC today? Or do you know anything about how effective the Stonewall Riots were?

Honey, you've got alot to learn about how effective non-conformist acts, often violent, active, radical or revolutionary acts have been. For that matter, I don't think you get the concept behind Gandhi's non-violent resistance if you compare that to what Brownduck said.





Edited, Jul 29th 2009 1:15pm by Annabella

I think it zepoodle was saying is that, in your example, challenging the alpha wolf is conformity in a sense, because it's an expected behavior in that society. A true non-conformist wolf would ditch the pack entirely, eat only berries and grass, take some peyote and get a vision of his spirit-human, and probably die without reproducing.

I also think, without having read all the blather of the last page, that someone probably should have used "compliance" instead of conformity. Gates was conforming by standing up for his rights - that's a behavior consistent with the societal customs of today. What he wasn't doing was complying to the will of authority. And that semantical difference has led to a lot of inane discussion.

So, let me ask you then, why do you think that Gates opposed the authority of this police officer? Why do you think other people have a negative view of the police?

And no, the Stonewall riots weren't about "conforming to a new norm," it was about defying the police's authority when the people in the bar thought that they were overstepping their boundaries in a major way. They directly got into violent confrontations with the police. It was the culmination of years of harassment and it was spontaneous--not planned and reviled by most of the mainstream at the time. It's actually an interesting case when considering your criticism of this particular case or in general, when POC have issues with police authority.

And it was very, very effective. It is essentially the start of the modern gay rights movement.


Edited, Jul 29th 2009 1:44pm by Annabella

I can't speak for Gates because I can't read his mind, but assuming he was a sensible person, he would have opposed police authority if he thought the police were misusing their authority. He wasn't doing it because he hates police authority (hopefully.) He was doing it because he thought the police officer was misusing that authority, and pursued the confrontation because he wanted them to stop.

If Gates thought the police officer was using his authority responsibly, he would presumably have conformed to the law just like every other person in America does when they're not actively committing a crime. We all agree to conform to the law because that's what the law is and that's the only way it can work. If we choose not to conform, there's usually a good reason. I don't know anything about the Stonewall riots, but I imagine that people wouldn't have bothered rioting if New York was treating its gay citizens just fine.

That's cool. I don't argue with hideous man-eating vaginas.

What the hell is the plural of ******, anyway? Vaginae?

K, great. So what was your point previously in this thread, above, when you talked about this:




If he thought that the police was misusing his authority and acted responsibly by opposing it, why do you have with it being discussed? Gates should not be held responsible for white people's racism. White people are responsible for our own actions and opinions. On the other hand, I haven't really met any African-Americans who don't have direct experience being profiled-- there is nothing wrong with acknowledging that racism and discrimination exists and affects people--the damage is done by the racism itself.

Your statements in this thread seem somewhat inconsistent.


Edited, Jul 29th 2009 2:04pm by Annabella

My point there was that by expanding a minor conflict between a black man and a police officer to an event of literally Presidential proportions, the media coverage of this event has worsened both side's opinion of the other, rather than encourage them to re-examine their respective prejudices. You can see it in action in this very thread. People who saw this as a case of police racism will go away with that idea firmly reinforced. People who saw this as a case of a black man raising strife to draw attention to himself will do the same.

The fact that the events that happened are rather vague doesn't help. What we have is a very small and very uncertain confrontation being pushed, quite literally, onto the president's desk, purely on the basis that Gates was black and the officer was white. The president doesn't need to get into this. This is not a presidential matter. Now they're examining what beers they'll be drinking for any hints of racial prejudice. Doesn't this strike you as a waste of time?

What I think happened is that Gates was tired and he felt like being an asshat to a police officer, and the police officer wasn't in the mood to take any asshattery. I don't think he was trying to push race relations at all. I personally think he defied police authority because he wasn't thinking straight.



If it seems inconsistent, it's probably because you didn't pick up that I thought Gates was acting stupidly by pursuing the police officer. If Gates was being sensible, the only reason he could have to defy police authority is if he thought the policeman was misusing that authority. What I think is that Gates was tired and peeved and in no mood to be sensible.

Edited, Jul 29th 2009 6:22pm by zepoodle

No, no no. I think Gates was acting like an asshat. No-one's going to push a race relations agenda on a police officer who shows up at their door just after they came back from China. What they are going to do is ***** and shout because they're in a ****** mood.

If Gates was acting sensibly, the only reason he would have to oppose authority is to effect change. I just don't think Gates was acting sensibly that afternoon. I don't think the police officer was either, which is why I think it's unfortunate that this gets the attention it does. Did the president make a statement on the shooting incident you linked there? Gates getting arrested got two statements from the president, and it isn't even a clear-cut case of police racism.



Can you separate my statements regarding a specific case from my statements regarding all cases? We're going to have a problem if you can't.



Eh. It's four-thirty in the morning.

He should try my sauce.