[AMV] #983 Make Virginia Great Again !

quote:

Op vrijdag 5 november 2021 19:42 schreef Knipoogje het volgende:

[..]
D'r wordt helemaal niets gepushed. Het is gewoon het normale verloop van een westerse maatschappij. Het gaat geleidelijk, in de steden wat sneller. En ineens is het een issue. Homohuwelijk, abortus legaliseren, zwarten stemrecht geven, vrouwen stemrecht geven, transgender wc's.... dat noem je ook wel evolutie.

Omdat dit culturele evolutie is hebben de republikeinen gevonden dat men er op kan bankieren. Woede creëren bij de groep voor wie het wat te snel gaat. Voor niemand was een transgender op de dameswc een probleem. Tot de GOP er ineens een probleem van maakte. De democraten doen niets anders dan een tegenreaktie daarop geven. Identity politics is een door de republikeinen omarmde wedge issue, niets anders.

quote:

Op vrijdag 5 november 2021 21:19 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Hoeveel jaar cel voor poging tot fraude?

[ twitter ]

quote:

Op vrijdag 5 november 2021 21:19 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Hoeveel jaar cel voor poging tot fraude?

[ twitter ]

quote:

Op vrijdag 5 november 2021 21:19 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Hoeveel jaar cel voor poging tot fraude?

[ twitter ]

quote:

Op vrijdag 5 november 2021 21:45 schreef Hanca het volgende:

[..]
Je gaat een 17 jarige toch geen celstraf geven omdat hij wil stemmen? Wegsturen is voldoende.

quote:

Op vrijdag 5 november 2021 21:19 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Hoeveel jaar cel voor poging tot fraude?

[ twitter ]

quote:

Op vrijdag 5 november 2021 17:49 schreef HowardRoark het volgende:

[..]
Nee, dat staat er niet. Je creëert nu het idee alsof dit de enige manier is hoe je dat kunt doen. Dat is niet waar. MLK kon het uitleggen in één zin: mensen behandelen op basis van hun karakter, niet op basis van onveranderlijke kenmerken van identiteit. Dit is echt geen hogere wiskunde zou ik toch zo zeggen.

quote:

During a July 12, 2021 episode of The Rubin Report, a conservative-leaning talk show where the host, Dave Rubin, uses long-form interviews to examine current social and political issues, Republican politician Kevin McCarthy evoked a rather tiresome talking point about Martin Luther King that set off a proverbial firestorm on social media. In less than 20 seconds, McCarthy pronounced the supposed inconsistencies between MLK’s “dream” and the tenets of Critical Race Theory (CRT). Citing school boards as the battleground for the next conservative campaign, the California Republican hoped to spark the ire of conservative parents by making a sweeping generalization of King’s legacy, claiming that proponents of CRT were “against everything Martin Luther King has ever told us: ‘Don’t judge us by the color of our skin,’ and “now they’re embracing it…they’re going backwards.” McCarthy’s claim trended on Twitter, as it was either criticized or embraced by those in the public square, oftentimes demarcated by one’s political self-identification as “right” or “left.”

McCarthy’s claim exposes how King’s legacy is sanitized by rightwing figures. He asserts that CRT does not only go against MLK’s “dream” in 1963, it goes against “everything Martin Luther King has ever told us.” This statement provides the crux of the issue. By emphasizing it goes against everything the Civil Rights leader “ever” told Americans about race relations, McCarthy and his conservative counterparts assume that the totality of King’s teachings are encapsulated in a single statement of one speech he gave in 1963.

McCarthy surely knew he was preaching to the choir, as Dave Rubin has repeated the claim of King’s colorblindness throughout his Youtube career. Right-leaning pundits from organizations like Campus Reform and PragerU, both online platforms espousing conservative ideas intended to counter the liberal teachings on modern American Universities, have repeated similar talking points.

As debates over Critical Race Theory overtook public discourse throughout the Summer of 2021, conservative commentators followed a familiar pattern of invoking a sanitized version of MLK’s legacy that relies upon a selective reading of his many public speeches. The tactic transforms King from a radical civil rights activist who criticized capitalism, US imperialism, income inequality, and white supremacy, into a harmless symbol who simply wanted Americans to transcend race and imagine that racial inequities are a problem of the past. This latter version of King was specifically molded by conservatives in the post-Civil Rights to reject movements seeking systemic change. For if the United States is truly “colorblind,” they argue, then any focus on race and racism is unnecessary.

Thankfully, scholars and left-leaning activists have not been silent on these misrepresentations. One cartoonist creatively reconstructed how an anti-CRT activist would react when confronted with King’s criticisms of structural racism in the United States. MLK’s daughter, Bernice King, has confronted McCarthy and rightwing politicians like Josh Mandel on Twitter, noting how both men are grossly misrepresenting both her father’s legacy and the lessons of CRT.

But the question remains: where do King’s teachings stand in comparison to critical race theory? To start, it is necessary to understand that within the 2016 edition of Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, editors Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic argued that CRT followed in the “American radical tradition” of Martin Luther King, Jr. (5). They positioned Critical Race Theory as a successor to his social justice philosophy that condemned American imperialism, classism, and anti-Black racism, noting that King’s legacy had been co-opted by “a rampant, in-your-face conservatism” designed to impede racial progress (30). So, despite conservatives’ lazy efforts to place King in opposition to CRT, many of the theorists themselves wholly embraced him as a precursor to their own scholarship.

It is, of course, impossible to condense the numerous writings of critical race scholars alongside those of the prolific Dr. King in a few paragraphs, but we can identify some core beliefs amongst them to determine how they align with one another. In Derrick Bell’s seminal 1995 essay “Who’s Afraid of Critical Race Theory,” he examined how CRT was a necessary tool for exposing systemic racism in US society, bluntly asserting, “As I see it, critical race theory recognizes that revolutionizing a culture begins with a radical reassessment of it” (893). The article notes how CRT is especially useful in critiquing the discourses of colorblindness in the post-Civil Rights era, noting that adherents to this method seek to “disrupt” and go beyond legal policies like “integration, affirmative action, and other liberal measures,” adding that these scholars are highly suspicious of the “liberal agenda.” The reference to a “liberal” agenda seems to critique those in the establishment who were satisfied by the legislative changes of the 1960s and remained complacent as racial injustices devastated Black communities in the era of “colorblindness.”

Indeed, CRT was developed among scholars of the post-civil rights generation as a lens for detecting the covert methods through which Black Americans were continuously marginalized in American society. Kimberle Crenshaw, a distinguished law professor and one of CRT’s foundational thought leaders, recently explained that practitioners of this theory “weren’t just looking at civil rights practice,” they were developing a methodology that helped a new generation of researchers “grapple with how law has created and sustained race—our particular kind of race and racism—in American society.” Critical Race Theorists use a variety of methods to critique the persistence of structural racism in the supposedly postracial era of US society, exposing how legal apparatuses continually perpetuate racist policies and racial injustices even after the legislative victories of the 1950s and 1960s. They also issue calls for anti-racist practices that confront and dismantle the structures of white supremacy that persisted into the present.

For Martin Luther King, Jr., one of his final works, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?, published in 1967, clearly demarcates his thoughts surrounding how white America largely abandoned the Civil Rights Movement after its legislative victories in the mid-1960s, and discusses a need to directly invest in the Black American community to achieve collective uplift. King used race-conscious messaging to note how white Americans held an “oppressor status” that caused too many of them to carry an “ambivalence” toward Black America’s continuous pursuit of social justice (109). King directly addresses the critiques of white Americans who attempted to redirect attention from the Black struggle, noting that the descendants of enslaved people in the United States held a wholly unique history of oppression that distinguished their contemporary issues from those of Irish or Italian populations, proclaiming “Negroes were brought here in chains long before the Irish decided voluntarily to leave Ireland or the Italians thought of leaving Italy” (110). It was the “stigma of color” that rendered Black Americans in a more precarious position when compared to white ethnic groups (110).

In similarities with the “radical reassessment” espoused in Bell’s essay, King bluntly stated: “as a first step toward the journey to full equality, we will have to engage in a radical reordering of national priorities” (90). In similarity to many CRT scholars, (126); he notes that America still has a “debt of justice” it must pay to its Black population (116); King critiques complacent white people who benefit from structural racism while denying that they are themselves “racist” he advocated for a “guaranteed income” (271), and he asserted that such a wealthy nation holds a moral imperative to ensure all of its citizens have access to “a decent house, an adequate education and enough money to provide basic necessities for one’s family” (138). An objective reader will notice how such ideas are in opposition to the colorblind King imagined by conservative commentators, and that they align with the more radical concepts of Critical Race Theorists who argue that the manifestations of anti-Black racism are unique in US society, and that anti-racist action must be a primary method toward dismantling white supremacy and radically restructuring society. Much more can be said on this topic, but these brief selections exemplify how the teachings of MLK and CRT are objectively much more closely aligned than they are in opposition.

In reality, the CRT debate is just another moment in the American tradition of misappropriating MLK, ranging from the contests over affirmative action; the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement; and the debates over socialism vs. capitalism, to name a few. When CRT is no longer politically useful, conservative pundits will find another point for their fearmongering and recycle the same colorblind King as a prop to misrepresent their target. Though it is tiring, scholars and activists must continually respond to these misrepresentations on all available platforms. The true believers of the conservative cause may willfully ignore the evidence, but as we make such blogs and essays more widely available, we can reach many others and introduce them to a Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King who believed that achieving a better society requires an honest reckoning with history; who unapologetically fought for the downtrodden and the poor; and who envisioned a “genuine revolution in values” in creating a more just and equitable society (201).

quote:

Op vrijdag 5 november 2021 21:45 schreef Hanca het volgende:

[..]
Je gaat een 17 jarige toch geen celstraf geven omdat hij wil stemmen? Wegsturen is voldoende.

quote:

University changes course; professors may testify in lawsuit

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Reversing its previous position, the University of Florida said Friday that it will allow three professors to testify as experts in a lawsuit challenging a new state election law that critics say restricts voting rights.

Last month, the university prohibited Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin from testifying in the lawsuit brought by civic groups, saying that such testimony would put the school in conflict with the administration of Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, which pushed the election law. More than half of the university’s trustees are appointed by the governor.

In a letter to the campus, university president Kent Fuchs said he is asking the office responsible for approving professors’ outside work to greenlight their request to serve as expert witnesses in the litigation. Fuchs said the outside work would have to be on the professors’ own time and not use university resources.

Attorneys representing the professors said they were still planning to move forward with a lawsuit against the university.

“Despite reversing the immediate decision prohibiting the Professors from testifying, the University has made no commitment to abandon its policy preventing academics from serving as expert witnesses when the University thinks that their speech may be adverse to the State and whatever political agenda politicians want to promote,” David O’Neil and Paul Donnelly said in a statement. “It is time for this matter to be rightfully adjudicated, not by press release, but in a court of law.”

The university’s announcement came after the union for faculty members urged donors to withhold contributions and scholars and artists to turn down invitations to campus until university administrators affirmed the free speech rights of school employees.

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

Even Democrats are now admitting 'Defund the Police' was a massive mistake

(CNN)On Tuesday, a proposal to fundamentally restructure the Minneapolis police department in the wake of George Floyd's death in 2020 was soundly defeated, a setback that even many Democrats acknowledged could be laid at the feet of the "defund the police" movement that some within the party embraced last summer.
"I think allowing this moniker, 'Defund the police,' to ever get out there, was not a good thing," Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) told The Washington Post's Dave Weigel on Thursday.
That's a remarkable turnaround from how politicians -- in and out of Minnesota -- acted in the immediate aftermath of Floyd's death and the summer of nationwide protests that followed.

Nine members of the Minneapolis City Council appeared at an event in June 2020 in which they pledged that they would work to dismantle the police force in the city. They did so on a stage that featured large cutout letters spelling out "Defund Police."

"We committed to dismantling policing as we know it in the city of Minneapolis and to rebuild with our community a new model of public safety that actually keeps our community safe," City Council President Lisa Bender told CNN at the time.
That message was picked up by some of the most liberal members of Congress -- from Minnesota's Ilhan Omar to Michigan's Rashida Tlaib.
New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, perhaps the best known progressive in Congress, warned that dismissing calls to defund the police -- or, at the very least, to reconsider the way police interact with a community -- was a mistake. "It is not crazy for Black and brown communities to want what White people have already given themselves and that is funding your schools more than you fund criminalizing your own kids," she said.
Even as liberal members (and the activist community) were pushing for the party to embrace the "defund the police" movement, others within the party were warning of the political dangers inherent in the slogan.
"This movement today, some people tried to hijack it," House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-South Carolina), the highest ranking African American in Congress, warned his party, according to reporting in Politico. "Don't let yourselves be drawn into the debate about defunding police forces."
Clyburn's warning proved prophetic. Then-President Donald Trump seized on the issue during the 2020 campaign, casting it as evidence that Democrats were out of touch with the average person. "LAW & ORDER, NOT DEFUND AND ABOLISH THE POLICE.," Trump tweeted in June 2020. "The Radical Left Democrats have gone Crazy!" And then this the following month: "Corrupt Joe Biden wants to defund our police. He may use different words, but when you look at his pact with Crazy Bernie, and other things, that's what he wants to do. It would destroy America!"
Even as Trump and Republicans were working to make "defund the police" a national issue (Joe Biden had made clear he did not favor defunding), the Minnesota politicians who were at the forefront of the "defund" movement were beginning to back off in the face of rising crime in the city. As Minnesota Public Radio reported in September 2020:
"Just months after leading an effort that would have defunded the police department, City Council members at Tuesday's work session pushed chief Medaria Arradondo to tell them how the department is responding to the violence.
"The number of reported violent crimes, like assaults, robberies and homicides are up compared to 2019, according to MPD crime data. More people have been killed in the city in the first nine months of 2020 than were slain in all of last year. Property crimes, like burglaries and auto thefts, are also up. Incidents of arson have increased 55 percent over the total at this point in 2019."
(The City Council had, months before, moved $1.1 million from the police department to the health department.)
After several fits and starts, Question 2 was added to the 2021 ballot. Among its provisions was replacing the Minnesota police department with a department of public safety, getting rid of language that requires a minimum number of police officers to be employed by the city and forcing the mayor to win the city council's support for someone to run the new department.
While the vote was expected to be quite close, it was, in fact, not.
As CNN wrote of the results:

"The status quo-affirming result is a setback to both citywide and national efforts to fundamentally reduce or eliminate the role of police in America. Opponents of calls to "defund the police" will point to the vote as fresh evidence that the backlash to police abuse that fueled last year's protests, which followed the killing of Floyd by then-Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. Talk of curbing police departments by cutting or limiting their resources has run into a countervailing wall of concern over public safety and waning support from early allies -- including leading Democrats who largely view it as political poison."
The question now for Democrats is whether they totally abandon efforts to remake policing in this country. (A bipartisan police reform attempt failed in Congress earlier this year.) Or if they continue on while doing their best to leave the "defund the police" slogan behind them.

quote:

Op vrijdag 5 november 2021 21:03 schreef HowardRoark het volgende:

[..]
Nee, zo zit het niet. Met culturele evolutie heeft allemaal weinig te maken. En er is tevens geen 'normaal' verloop van de Westerse maatschappij. Ik zou het bijvoorbeeld niet normaal willen noemen dat zwarte mensen of vrouwen ooit geen stemrecht hadden. En het homohuwelijk kun je dan nog scharen onder het idee van gelijke rechten, abortus ... tja, zelfbeschikking voor vrouwen wellicht.

De genderideologie daarentegen staat hier helemaal los van, dat is zoals het woord al zegt, een ideologie. En dat pushen wordt gedaan door (radicale) progressieven, die een politieke ideologie omarmen. Conservatieven (ook zij omarmen een politieke ideologie) zien daar geen heil in en pushen dus terug. De identity politics in deze komt dus ook van de progressieven (de Democraten) niet van de conservatieven (de Republikeinen). Vanuit dat perspectief, als je dit dan een wedge issue zou willen noemen, zou ik het probleem bij de Democraten zoeken. Als zij dit niet pushen, is er geen issue.

quote:

The anti-gender movement is an international movement which opposes what it refers to as gender ideology, gender theory, or genderism.[1] These concepts do not have a coherent definition[2] and cover a variety of issues;[1] gender ideology has been described as an "empty signifier"[2] or catch-all term "for all that conservative Catholics despise".[3] The idea of gender ideology has been described by scholars as a moral panic[4][5] or conspiracy theory, as it alleges that there is a secret cabal out to undermine society.[6]

Bron

quote:

Op zaterdag 6 november 2021 01:04 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]
Genderideologie nog wel! Je weet dat dat woord juist door de anti-gender beweging gebruikt wordt om het als 'ideologie' te kunnen aanvallen?
[..]
Het is een COMPLOT! Wordt zeker ook op scholen onderwezen?

quote:

Op zaterdag 6 november 2021 03:24 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
[ twitter ]

Deze vrouw dacht iig dat ze bevoorrecht zou worden. Hoe komt ze daar toch bij? White privilege bestaat toch helemaal niet volgens Trumpisten

Overigens zijn er verschillende rechters geweest die tijdens de rechtszaken van J6-rellers opmerkingen maakten over de lage strafeisen van aanklagers.

quote:

Op zaterdag 6 november 2021 03:32 schreef OMG het volgende:

[..]
O, nee, ik hoor 3 letters!!! C... R.... T!!! Snel, systemic racism bestaat niet of zo.

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

Op zaterdag 6 november 2021 04:36 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
[ twitter ]

Prima als je een witte dochter hebt hoor maar als het een zwart meisje is wordt het al een stuk verdachter!

quote:

Op vrijdag 5 november 2021 23:38 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]
Hoe denk je dat Trumpisten zouden reageren als het een zwarte jongen van 17 was geweest in zo'n 'shithole city run by DemocRATS!'

quote:

Op zaterdag 6 november 2021 07:14 schreef Hanca het volgende:

[..]
En dus reageer jij maar hetzelfde?
Nooit gehoord van ergens boven staan?

Ik begin als ik hier kijk en wat verder lees te begrijpen waarom Vigginia verloren ging en de democraten er richting de midterms slecht op staan. De democraten zijn veel te veel bezig met vertellen hoe slecht de andere helft van het land is en te veel bezig met Trump. In plaats van de partij te zijn die boven dat gescheld staat en iedereen in zijn of haar waarde laat.

Hier valt het extreem op, hier heb je geen users die de plannen van de democraten toejuichen. Je hebt alleen de Trumpfans en users die anti zijn. Met anti zijn win je bijna nooit verkiezingem als je de progressieve stemmers nodig hebt. Progressieven moet je overtuigen met plannen, niet met ruzie maken en angst.

Als ik lees wat de campagne in Viginia was, was die ook veel te veel gericht op afzetten tegen dat waar de helft van de bevolking voor staat. En zo moedig je juist die helft aan om te komen stemmen en laat je jouw helft thuis blijven.

Echte Democraten zouden helemaal niet bezig moeten zijn met Trump, met die rechtszaken of met wat dan ook van de Republikeinen. Progressieven win je namelijk vooral met een toekomstvisie, waar je heen wil met het land.

Dit topic is helaas een voorbeeld met hoe veel democraten ook op twitter e.d. zijn... alleen maar bezig met vertellen hoe slecht Trump en de groep er omheen was. Totaal oninteressant als je ook bezig kunt zijn met toekomstbeelden.

quote:

Op zaterdag 6 november 2021 07:25 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]
Natuurlijk moet je daarboven staan.

En natuurlijk moeten ze die rechtszaken wel voeren

En nee ze zijn niet alleen maar bezig met Trump

Je volgt het niet echt he?