JinJer & Felicity 44: The Glossy Veneer is Slipping

[NakedKnees]

7 minutes ago, allthegoodnamesrgone said:

ITA, however I don't really care for people who can only feel sympathy for a situation once it has effected them personally. Get some empathy and stop being a selfish asshole.  It shouldn't take something negatively impacting you for you see how wrong you were / it was. 

I read about that stupid woman and I have no sympathy for her. She was just fine with other peoples husbands/wives/children/parents being deported, it was only when it hurt HER life that she said "oh wow this is wrong" FUCK HER!

I hear you and I certainly don't think this woman deserves a pat on the back. In fact, she deserves to go on as an ally, apologetic, and NOT seeking attention.

That said, I personally believe people can change. I've had beliefs that I've moved away from and am now apologetic for, and I think that's pretty normal. Again, I don't think this woman (or anyone like her) deserves a cookie or even forgiveness if that's what you're into- but as long as she's working against her bigotry and trying to learn, I think people like her might be useful to social justice movements. I do think she's been given a bigger platform than necessary, but there's still a big difference between "I don't sympathize" and "FUCK YOU" and it unnecessarily divides leftist and social justice movements up like crazy. 

[HarleyQuinn]

Jeremy's tweet reads like he wanted to put as many big words as possible in it to make himself look smarter.

I imagine "dumb" is probably the insult he finds hurts the most. Can't insult his intelligence. 

[BernRul]

2 hours ago, PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea said:

I would love to be optimistic about this, but it's not like all immigrants or kids of immigrants are uniformly anti-racist, feminist, pro-LGBT, or otherwise woke.

You're absolutely right, and I didn't mean to imply that they are. But right now (at least in America--can't speak for anywhere else) racism primarily exists because of lack of exposure to groups of a different race. So you could, for example, be a white person who is racists against Middle Eastern people, a black person racist against Hispanic immigrants, a Southern Asian immigrant racist against black people. It goes from otherizing people, from creating a boogeyman that isn't real.

The cure to that is exposure. That's not me just being naive, it's fairly documented that meaningful exposure to people of other races "cures" racism so to speak. During the Civil War, white Union soldiers became more and more in favor of black sufferage and rights, and they came from a time period when African Americans weren't even considered fully human. But during the war they saw the bravery of black soldiers, and got to know some of them as people. I also see it in many of my students, who have never known anything but diversity.

So as America becomes less white, it becomes harder for us to racially segregate ourselves. We become more and more exposed to people of different backgrounds. Our media is more diverse (this trend has just started--finally). We can't otherize each other any more, because we are getting to know each other more. Trump succeeded in piting poor whites from mostly white areas against protesting African Americans, immigrants, and Muslims. That won't work when the country is more diverse. It doesn't work with a good chunk of the population right now. 

Will people still be assholes in 2040? Hell yes. I'm sure there will still be racists, too. But the Trump brand of bigotry will not exist. There are signs that it's dying now, some of which I mentioned. I'm optimistic, but I'm also a cynic too. I know that it's not going to magically disappear over night, but the signs are there and that's why "social justice" scares people like Jeremy.

Btw, FiveThirtyEight is a good, unbiased, website that makes statistical predictions about elections and has good analysis on political trends. They gave Trump the highest likelihood of winning compared to other polling sites. Right now, a lot of what they say backs up what I believe.

3 hours ago, sleepy_doggos said:

Thanks for this@bernrul. It uplifted me in a way.

You're welcome! I'm honestly touched. 

[kmachete14]

4 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

Oh FFS.

 

Okay so I read this and it seems that Jeremy believes that injustice comes from people who "choose to disobey God and His word about equitable treatment." This is pretty reasonable. What I don't get is the rest of the argument. Are they saying that people are so sinful that engaging in social justice just brings more sin? Because if that's the case, wouldn't engaging in ANYTHING just bring more sin? They also address that you can't force change from social movements that change the government, but only by changing hearts. However, how is that supposed to work practically? MLK's social justice movement resulted in legal, government action that while at first may have not have actually changed racist attitudes, at least provided a punishment for them as well as gave African Americans tools and legal protection -- they could VOTE and they had a jury of their actual peers! Those southern racists were CHRISTIANS who would never have a change of heart because their pastors were racist too. This whole argument is so dumb. I mean, even if you did have a "Change of heart" and decide to follow the Bible, then wouldn't you WANT to engage in social justice activities instead of just watch things happen???? I just can't understand and the arguments don't make sense. 

[Jinder Roles]

@BernRul I disagree. You’re right, exposure does undo some stuff but I think other things need to happen (mainly systemic) to truly fix bigotry. Desegregation happened over 50 years ago and there are still issues. Hell, slavery ended nearly 200 years ago and there are still issues (although if you look at in in the grand scheme of history, black ppl in America have been enslaved (400+ years) way longer than they’ve been free. Timelines are relative)

I think what I’m saying is I personally don’t view things like exposure and diversity to necessarily  equate to no bigotry. They definitely do sometimes, but sometimes it’s  used to save face, look good, or make profit. 

I don’t put too much weight on the 2040 thing because I’ve learned not to underestimate humanity and society’s ability to ‘other’ people for personal gain. I’m from a region with majority POC (more than 90%) and because some systemic issues were never truly dealt with (most past on from colonization) we have categories of colourism, classism etc. that continue to be issues. 

[PigtailHeadband]

1 hour ago, HarleyQuinn said:

Jeremy's tweet reads like he wanted to put as many big words as possible in it to make himself look smarter.

Maybe he had some help from Baby Kangaroo Tribbiani!

[nickelodeon]

What did these dudes do before Twitter allowed 290 characters?

[BernRul]

21 minutes ago, Jinder Roles said:

@BernRul I disagree. You’re right, exposure does undo some stuff but I think other things need to happen (mainly systemic) to truly fix bigotry. Desegregation happened over 50 years ago and there are still issues. Hell, slavery ended nearly 200 years ago and there are still issues (although if you look at in in the grand scheme of history, black ppl in America have been enslaved (400+ years) way longer than they’ve been free. Timelines are relative)

I think what I’m saying is I personally don’t view things like exposure and diversity to necessarily  equate to no bigotry. They definitely do sometimes, but sometimes it’s  used to save face, look good, or make profit. 

I don’t put too much weight on the 2040 thing because I’ve learned not to underestimate humanity and society’s ability to ‘other’ people for personal gain. I’m from a region with majority POC (more than 90%) and because some systemic issues were never truly dealt with (most past on from colonization) we have categories of colourism, classism etc. that continue to be issues. 

Oh yeah, I know. Sorry if this wasn't clear. In my post I said that bigotry absolutely will still exist, it just will not be the same as what it is now. It won't look like MAGA.  People will still discriminate against each other, it just won't be for the exact same reasons. And if we work hard now, and keep fighting, we can minimize its effects. In my first post I mentioned complacency. If we're complacent, this lasts longer. If we're not, we have a reasonable chance at progress. 

Exposure obviously isn't the only thing that needs to happen. But I do think when we have more diversity, it allows for more types of people (instead of, say, overwhelmingly white males) to have control of the system. And then they can help make those systematic changes. Like right now more women are running for office than ever before. Not all will win, but not all will lose either, making our congress more female. More female congress means a congress that is more likely to consider women's rights on issues like sexual assault, abortion, and maternity leave, just to name a few. Not all of those women will be Dems, but most are, just like most women voters are Dems. 

Also, on the subject of segregation, America actually did improve greatly after slavery ended. The Reconstruction era was one in which a record number of black Americans were elected into office, where whites and blacks worked together to help ex-slaves, and where the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were all radified.  To quote Lies My Teacher Told Me , "Jackie Robinson was not the first black player in major league baseball. Blacks had played in the major leagues in the nineteenth century, but in 1889 whites had forced them out" (155). The period after the Civil War but before Jim Crow was in full force was more eqaul  than the society that came after it.

People did use their more positive feelings towards Afrian Americans (thanks to their amazing efforts in the Civil War) to  work  with them to make systematic change. However, many white pro-Confederates  (during Reconstruction, btw, as many as 1 in  4 to 1 in 3 Southerners were pro-Reconstruction, though this isn't a well known fact) continued to push back against that progress while others became complacent in the face of that opposition. But I think it shows that things do get better when people fight for what is right, and get worse when they become lazy and indifferent. Right now, more people are becoming active in demanding their rights and sticking up for the rights of others. If we can keep that up, and if more diversity helps get more people in positions of influence, real progress can be made. 

I hope that cleared up my point. I definitely don't think the world is all rainbows and sunshine and that we'll hold hands in a perfectly 100% free and happy society. 

[pook]

20 hours ago, BernRul said:

This is their death rattle and deep down they know it. The world's changing, and it's scary to them. In the era of Trump it can really seem like this kind of ugliness (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) is getting worse but I honestly believe that they are being loud now because they know they are doomed. 30 years from now, schoolchildren will view them the same way I viewed the white Southerners who fought against the Civil Rights movement. They're going out kicking and screaming and taking as many good people down with them as they can, but they are going out. 

50% of children born in the U.S are minorities. 

By 2019, POC children will be the majority of all US children.

Between 2041-2046 the whole United States will be minority majoirty. 2043 is the estimate if immigration rates stay the same (2041 if they go up, 2046 if they go down). Trump and his anti immigration assholes can do whatever they want,but all they are doing is preventing the inevitable by three measly years. It's still happening.

As of 2010, 15% of all  new marriages are interracial. That's a sizeable minority, and it's been growing rapidly with each new census. 

TX is going to eventually become a blue state (or at least a deeply purple state) , and once it does, it will be impossible for Republicans to steal another election. I'm not saying it's going to happen soon, or in time for my baby angel Beto to beat out the Zodiac killer (I do have a feeling Beto will be more successful in 2020 on a broader scale, but who really knows at this point) . It will take years, probably decades, but it will happen in my lifetime for sure.

Alabama has a Democrat senator. I don't care that Roy Moore was a rapist--that's still unbelievable. 

Women have never been so bold. I'm still young, but I remember that things were very different a mere 10 years ago. Hell, they were different 5 years ago. The Women's March, the #MeToo movement, the historic number of women running for office in 2018 might not look like much on their own, but taken together they show that more women are willing to stand up for themselves and they aren't backing down. The gender gap between the parties is getting wider, too.

The LGBTQ community, while still facing plenty of discrimination, has also come a long way in a short time.  They have made themselves more visible to the public, and they aren't going away. 67% of Americans approve of gay marraige, and again, that' keeps going up with every year.

The last time a non-incumbent Republican candidate won the popular vote was in 1988. The last two presidents both lost it, because the majority of the country does not want them.

So Jeremy can bitch. Derrick can feel emboldened by Trump. They are a dying breed. They might be dying slowly, but make no mistake, they are dying. Deep down they are scared and insecure. They are use to privilege, so true equality feels like oppression. I don't even feel angry about Jeremy's post (though seriously, in case it isn't clear, fuck him) because it's just so pathetic. 

I don't mean for this to sound like I'm being complacent, either. I think complacency after Obama got us 2016. But if people (to use a term Jeremy loves) stay "woke" and keep fighting, the age of Trump will be over sooner rather than later. 

Bravo!  Best post I have ever read on Fj!

[BernRul]

1 minute ago, pook said:

Bravo!  Best post I have ever read on Fj!

That is so kind, thank you. 

[SilverBeach]

19 minutes ago, BernRul said:

The Reconstruction era was one in which a record number of black Americans were elected into office, where whites and blacks worked together to help ex-slaves, and where the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were all radified.  

And it all came to a screeching halt when federal troops were withdrawn and the KKK was organized to return things to their natural order, which meant white folks on top.

[BernRul]

3 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

And it all came to a screeching halt when federal troops were withdrawn and the KKK was organized to return things to their natural order, which meant white folks on top.

Yes. Which is why I believe that people shouldn't be complacent. I referenced it because it's an example of how society can both make radical, positive change, and then also undo it all through indifference. But it doesn't have to be one way or the other, it depends on us. 

[Rachel333]

1 hour ago, Jinder Roles said:

Desegregation happened over 50 years ago and there are still issues. Hell, slavery ended nearly 200 years ago and there are still issues (although if you look at in in the grand scheme of history, black ppl in America have been enslaved (400+ years) way longer than they’ve been free. Timelines are relative)

Regarding timelines, I think people forget how recent a lot of that stuff was. Slavery ended only about 150 years ago. Ruth Bonner, who died just last year, was the daughter of a man who was born into slavery. There are still many people living whose lives overlapped with the lives of people born into slavery. We're just not as far removed from that era as people think.

[SilverBeach]

It also depends on unrelenting enforcement of the law. Some folks won't do right unless forced to.

[BernRul]

1 minute ago, SilverBeach said:

It also depends on unrelenting enforcement of the law. Some folks won't do right unless forced to.

Absolutely. Sadly it will always be that way. 

 

3 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

Regarding timelines, I think people forget how recent a lot of that stuff was. Slavery ended only about 150 years ago. Ruth Bonner, who died just last year, was the daughter of a man who was born into slavery. There are still many people living whose lives overlapped with the lives of people born into slavery. We're just not as far removed from that era as people think.

Yeah, this is true. For most of our history, we had slavery. The time without slavery, and especially the time after the Civil Rights, was a blink of an eye compared to the time before it. That's why I love history; it shows us how connected we are to the past. 

[SilverBeach]

At the time of my birth, the civil war had not yet been over for a hundred years. I came of age during the civil rights era. I marvel at how little progress has been made since then. I love history, but as a black person it does not make me optimistic about race relations in America. We are actually going backwards.

[Jinder Roles]

@BernRul I should have said I disagree to an extent, but thank you for clarifying. And you are right, the best thing we can do is not be complacent. I have to remember that for myself too. 

I’m personally quite cynical sometimes (but hopefully somewhat nuanced) and I see history as more of a backwards and forwards rather than a steady profession. But that doesn’t mean it has to be that way. 

[Rachel333]

Unfortunately there are a lot of young people who are embracing hate too; it's not just old people who are dying out anyway as is sometimes portrayed. 

[Lillymuffin]

19 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

Apparently there was something about sexual abuse in there in addition to the other horrific stuff*. If so, then there’s no competition - Jeremy easily wins worst Duggar son-in-law in my opinion. Dude has three sisters-in-law who were sexually abused and his own fucking wife was a victim of sexual abuse as well. It takes a special kind of asshole to sign something like this. I don’t think even Derick has managed to reach that specific level of assholery 

I can’t even read any further. (This subject is particularly upsetting for me.)

You know things have gotten bad when you have to go back to Poopistan because it pisses you off less!

[BernRul]

26 minutes ago, Jinder Roles said:

@BernRul I should have said I disagree to an extent, but thank you for clarifying. And you are right, the best thing we can do is not be complacent. I have to remember that for myself too. 

I’m personally quite cynical sometimes (but hopefully somewhat nuanced) and I see history as more of a backwards and forwards rather than a steady profession. But that doesn’t mean it has to be that way. 

I see it that way too. I wanted the Civil War/Reconstruction example to show that. We went forward, then backward. I actually really hate the idea that progress is automatically going to happen, because I think it makes people lazy. That happened in the 1980s (where we definitely went backwards as a society in many ways) and than again in the 2009-2015 time range (which gave rise to the alt-right). But right now I believe there are enough signs to point to things getting better, so long as we don't lose the momentum. 

 

[Rachel333]

I'm not terrible optimistic because in the US we have a racist president who literally said some Nazis are good people. He has a huge, fanatical base of supporters and multiple studies have shown that racism and sexism were the main reasons people voted for him. I will do what I can to prevent it and I desperately hope I'm wrong, but I honestly think he'll win re-election too.

[SapphireSlytherin]

1 hour ago, Rachel333 said:

Unfortunately there are a lot of young people who are embracing hate too; it's not just old people who are dying out anyway as is sometimes portrayed. 

I am FB friends with several of my daughter's friends, both conservative and liberal. The liberals are always posting politically motivated/oriented posts. The conservatives keep their traps shut and post NOTHING the least bit political, nor do they respond to the liberals' posts. They say they want no part of being labeled "snowflakes" or "cry-babies" or "libtards"  or "participation trophy winners" or whatever derogatory term is being thrown around at liberal people. 

What is mind-boggling, to me, is that some (many?) of these young (<30) people are full-on embracing Trump and his ideologies, and voting (in large numbers) for Republican candidates. They're voting for Republicans at every turn, and they are trying to recruit others in their age group to do the same, while staying in the background and not making their political leanings "known." They're "closet conservatives" in order to maintain friendships and relationships, and - in some cases - jobs.

I think -- based on my personal observations -- that there is going to me a higher-than-expected turnout of young conservatives to "counter balance" the votes of the young liberals, and I think it's just going to get nastier as time goes on. I see (and hear) a backlash against their generation's "me too" and "resist" movement (which is met with derision and eye-rolls, but never in public). It will be "interesting" to see how the upcoming midterm elections play out, especially when the polls break down votes by age group. 

Oh, to be clairvoyant - to see what the political landscape looks like in 10 years...

[BernRul]

12 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

I'm not terrible optimistic because in the US we have a racist president who literally said some Nazis are good people. He has a huge, fanatical base of supporters and multiple studies have shown that racism and sexism were the main reasons people voted for him. I will do what I can to prevent it and I desperately hope I'm wrong, but I honestly think he'll win re-election too.

I'm going to get a little personal here. When Trump won in 2016, I was devestated. I felt nothing but disgust for humanity, and hatred for the people who voted for him. I even briefly thought about killing myself. My husband has DACA, and Trump said he would take DACA away on day one. 

This was the end of my world. I had to wait for the inevitable. My husband's DACA was good through 2018, but after that, to be blunt, we were fucked. There was no hope. My sister-in-law said she would never have a child while Trump was president, and I agreed. What's the point of bring a child into this hateful world? 

But then I saw that despite all of the people showing how horrible they were, there were plenty showing that they wanted to fight. Not just for themselves, but for people they didn't know. For people like me and my husband. People fought against Trump, and because of that, he has DACA through 2020. I thought it was going to be gone January 2017, and we're still lasting all the way to 2020. Kids with DACA are currently renewing to this day. And that's because good people keep fighthing, and when good people keep fighting they can win. 

This video makes some good points about how people are becoming more involved in politics thanks to Trump. I think the info on donations is pretty interesting. 

 

 https://fivethirtyeight.com

 This looks at various data in an unbiased way to make predictions. Right now they say Dems have an 80% chance of winning the House. They also have very good anaylsis on current events.

Yeah, Trump can win re-election. It's possible, especially if enough people stay home instead of voting. But he can easily be defeated at the same time. He's historically unpopular, the Mueller investigation is actually having an impact on people (538 has some good analysis on that), the groups that dislike him are getting fired up and more likely to turn out this time. He also won't be running against Clinton this time. If you put him against a candidate who is charming and inspires people, he will lose. Will he definitely lose? No, he could win. But people shouldn't assume he's already won. He hasn't. 

Some people are more optimistic, some more pessimistic. Both are valid, as long as we keep doing what's right. To quote a wise old man: "It is important to fight and fight again, and keep fighting, for only then can evil be kept at bay though never quite eradicated."

[Rachel333]

17 minutes ago, BernRul said:

But people shouldn't assume he's already won. He hasn't. 

No, but I'm far more scared of people assuming he'll lose like they did in 2016.

I'm actually usually quite optimistic about the state of the world and the future but I think liberals have been seriously naive about Trump.

[BernRul]

3 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

No, but I'm far more scared of people assuming he'll lose like they did in 2016.

I'm actually usually quite optimistic about the state of the world and the future but I think liberals have been seriously naive about Trump.

Oh, they definitely have. People were extremely naive. I think people are less naive now after they've seen him as president.