America - The Official Thread

[Danoff]

Aye. But we can keep the promise a living nation made to a living people.

...and what promise is that?

 

[TexRex]

Amazing.

 

[Dotini]

...and what promise is that?

As you say, it's all moot now. The cause is lost. We should just move on as usual, fire a few cops, hand out some pot, and accept your great truth that racism - and its costs and consequences - must be legal.

But I certainly wouldn't want to carry the millstone you wear around your neck.

 

[Danoff]

As you say, it's all moot now. The cause is lost. We should just move on as usual, fire a few cops, hand out some pot, and accept your great truth that racism - and its costs and consequences - must be legal.

But I certainly wouldn't want to carry the millstone you wear around your neck.

As predicted, this was unsatisfying. You simply will not engage in honest conversation. You expect me to capitulate to a position which you don't even attempt to defend. Instead I have to listen to you go on the offensive, trying to re-characterize everything I write into something it's not, and somehow this means i should accept your non-defended nonsensical position? This is Trump's technique.

You typed:

Aye. But we can keep the promise a living nation made to a living people.

Which is wrong. Your "40 acres and mule" agreement is a promise that dead people made to dead people. At best it's a promise that the USA made to dead people. But it is not a promise made to living people. Which is why I asked...

...and what promise is that?

Because this question makes it clear that you were saying something you could not substantiate. That you didn't bother is again demonstrating bad faith.

 

[Dotini]

"40 acres and mule" agreement is a promise that dead people President Abraham Lincoln made to dead freed people.

Boiled down to the basics, a meaningful and tangible effort should be made to improve the situation. Firing some cops and handing out pot isn't it.

Maybe its reparations, maybe its something else.

Show me your plan.

"Racism must be legal"

- Danoff the opinonmaker​

 

[Danoff]

Boiled down to the basics, a meaningful and tangible effort should be made to improve the situation.

I don't disagree.

Firing some cops and handing out pot isn't it.

This is how you want to mischaracterize rooting out racism among the police force and decriminalizing recreational drugs. Nonsense drug charges are a tool for racist cops.

Maybe its reparations, maybe its something else.

You keep trying to inject this thing which you will not defend.

Show me your plan.

I have, but this is not how you go about demonstrating that we should adopt your ideas.

"Racism must be legal"

- Danoff the opinonmaker​

To do otherwise is to create thought crimes and violate freedom of speech.

Edit:

Don't think I haven't noticed how quickly you've gone from avoiding defending your own posts, to recharacterizing and misrepresenting mine, to now trying to paint me as some kind of power-hungry narcissist. Again, you seem to be completely incapable of or unwilling to engage in honest discussion.

 

[huskeR32]

Boiled down to the basics, a meaningful and tangible effort should be made to improve the situation. Firing some cops and handing out pot isn't it.

And what is "it"? I usually seem to have one of the more optimistic views of government on this site, at least as far as Americans go, and even I can't get anywhere near the idea of reparations without running into a million seemingly insurmountable problems.

 

[Danoff]

And what is "it"? I usually seem to have one of the more optimistic views of government on this site, at least as far as Americans go, and even I can't get anywhere near the idea of reparations without running into a million seemingly insurmountable problems.

This is the Dotini PlanTM

Can we (mostly) all agree that the Black people of America as a whole lack full participation and equality and are deserving of some kind of justice, some kind of aid, aid that will give them a stake in the ongoing success and improvement of America as a whole? If so, then here is my prototype plan:

- Congress passes enabling legislation approved by the President and cleared by the courts as Constitutional - even if an Amendment must be required and passed.
- A new corporation is created, working name Martin Luther King Corporation, MLKC for short.
- The mission of the corporation is to design, manufacture, distribute and service a certain percentage - gradually rising to close to 100% - of all manufactured materiel and goods currently imported from China. This includes steel, nut and bolts, appliances, furniture, car parts, clothing, electronics, everything.
- Design centers, manufacturing plants, distribution and service centers are set up across the land, mostly near Black population concentrations.
- The best corporations in America from Microsoft to Tesla, all of them, will assist.
- Employees and management of the finished corporation will be majority, or maybe close to 100% Black.
- Ownership of MLKC will be by stock distributed proportionately to every Black person in America. Period. Superstar athletes and entertainers can decline their share.
- Corporations previously importing Chinese goods will be compensated, but only up to a point. They should have been investing in America in the first place.
- Customers of MLKC products will guaranteed by USG, states and municipalities, and the price and quality of the products will attract customers from all walks of life.
- The funding of MLKC will be by the federal government, both individual and corporate taxes.
- The import of almost all goods from China will be ended by law.
- This plan is in raw, rough form, and will need some polishing. Your input is needed.

 

[Dotini]

This is the Dotini PlanTM

Dotini endorses this plan. He, and he alone, has been thinking about our deepest problems and has conceived bold ideas to fix them. Nobel Prize stuff? Can you do better? Let the work begin!

 

[Danoff]

Dotini endorses this plan. He, and he alone, has been thinking about our deepest problems and has conceived bold ideas to fix them. Nobel Prize stuff? Can you do better? Let the work begin!

Based on initial feedback, I withdraw my plan, and will likely have no further plans.

 

[Dotini]

Since nobody else has promulgated a plan to address the issues Lincoln faced, this is the best (only) plan of what we have now. This plan represents the best efforts of GTPlanet's members - so far. I challenge anyone to do better, and make Lincoln proud.

 

[Danoff]

Since nobody else has promulgated a plan to address the issues Lincoln faced, this is the best (only) plan of what we have now. This plan represents the best efforts of GTPlanet's members - so far. I challenge anyone to do better, and make Lincoln proud.

This is what you do. Over and over. You run away from conversations declaring that you have lost, that you give up, that you will not defend your position - only to come back, for no apparent reason, with exactly the same position as if it had never happened. Are you gaslighting us? Are you suffering short term memory loss? I don't understand it.

 

[TexRex]

I got this.

...

You know what's coming.

...

Dotini endorses this plan. He, and he alone, has been thinking about our deepest problems and has conceived bold ideas to fix them. Nobel Prize stuff? Can you do better? Let the work begin!

Based on initial feedback, I withdraw my plan, and will likely have no further plans.

 

[Dotini]

I don't understand it.

This forum is not a contest of personalities (or shouldn't be), but a discussion of ideas and opinions. I have expressed an idea and an opinion on a major social problem. The problem has not gone away.

Sometimes I get bored of defending myself against personal attacks, but here you have resurrected an idea from the graveyard of personal attacks. Let's run with it. Reparations.

 

[Joey D]

Since nobody else has promulgated a plan to address the issues Lincoln faced, this is the best (only) plan of what we have now. This plan represents the best efforts of GTPlanet's members - so far. I challenge anyone to do better, and make Lincoln proud.

I gave you a plan that would certainly help the situation. Reform the police and legalize drug so the young black person (who are often disproportionately targeted) doesn't end up with a felony on their record, which ends up barring them from a decent job. It's an obtainable solution to a problem. Your solution is completely unobtainable and not even Constitutional, it'd never hold up in court.

 

[Danoff]

This forum is not a contest of personalities (or shouldn't be), but a discussion of ideas and opinions.

...and not someone ignoring all of the discussion and just repeating themselves a few weeks later.

 

[Dotini]

I gave you a plan that would certainly help the situation. Reform the police and legalize drug so the young black person (who are often disproportionately targeted) doesn't end up with a felony on their record, which ends up barring them from a decent job. It's an obtainable solution to a problem. Your solution is completely unobtainable and not even Constitutional, it'd never hold up in court.

Your plan does not address the problem of massive institutional inequality on a wide range of problems. Mine does.
In my plan, I raise and address the constitutional problem briefly.

...and not someone ignoring all of the discussion and just repeating themselves a few weeks later.

I was willing to let it rest, but you brought it up again. I never accepted your argument back then, but feel free to swing again.

 

[Danoff]

I was willing to let it rest, but you brought it up again. I never accepted your argument back then, but feel free to swing again.

What is being asked of you is not agreement, but honest conversation. When someone brings up problems with what you're saying, your standard response is to throw your hands up, declare yourself wrong, leave, but not think on it. This is why you come back with the same thing a few weeks later. Because you did not believe what you were saying when you ended the previous discussion abruptly. This is why you later say "I never accepted your argument back then", because even though you leave in a huff and sarcastically declare yourself having been wrong, you don't think on it.

What is being asked of you is to listen to what you're hearing, think about what you're hearing, and consider your position on the subject. If valid points are raised, adjust, ask questions, alter your position.

That you don't do this is why I keep saying that you're not honestly participating in discussion. One of the very first steps in this conversation is to understand that no one else has to be right for you to be wrong. Even if you think everyone else is wrong, you can be wrong too. That should stop you from saying (very unhelpful) things like "let's see if your plan is better than mine". Nobody's plan has to be better than yours for yours to be bad. It can be bad all by itself.

 

[Dotini]

What is being asked of you is not agreement, but honest conversation. When someone brings up problems with what you're saying, your standard response is to throw your hands up, declare yourself wrong, leave, but not think on it. This is why you come back with the same thing a few weeks later. Because you did not believe what you were saying when you ended the previous discussion abruptly. This is why you later say "I never accepted your argument back then", because even though you leave in a huff and sarcastically declare yourself having been wrong, you don't think on it.

What is being asked of you is to listen to what you're hearing, think about what you're hearing, and consider your position on the subject. If valid points are raised, adjust, ask questions, alter your position.

That you don't do this is why I keep saying that you're not honestly participating in discussion. One of the very first steps in this conversation is to understand that no one else has to be right for you to be wrong. Even if you think everyone else is wrong, you can be wrong too. That should stop you from saying (very unhelpful) things like "let's see if your plan is better than mine". Nobody's plan has to be better than yours for yours to be bad. It can be bad all by itself.

Here is the best part of my plan. I do not think it wrong and would never back off. It is the foundation piece of my plan.

Can we (mostly) all agree that the Black people of America as a whole lack full participation and equality and are deserving of some kind of justice, some kind of aid, aid that will give them a stake in the ongoing success and improvement of America as a whole? If so, then here is my prototype plan:

The details of my plan are ALL up for discussion and revision, as noted. Accept my foundation, make suggestions and I will consider them.

Personal attacks will hasten my exit from the discussion.

 

[Danoff]

Here is the best part of my plan. I do not think it wrong and would never back off. It is the foundation piece of my plan.
The details of my plan are ALL up for discussion and revision, as noted. Accept my foundation, make suggestions and I will consider them.

I do not think that black people need some kind of aid. They need equal treatment under the law.

Personal attacks will hasten my exit from the discussion.

Are you agreeing to actually consider what is said? Or are you misrepresenting it as a personal attack?

 

[TexRex]

Personal attacks will hasten my exit from the discussion.

Which implies you're going to exit it. Of course this isn't a surprise to anyone, but I suppose you acknowledging it in advance is a step in the right direction.

 

[NotThePrez]

Your plan does not address the problem of massive institutional inequality on a wide range of problems. Mine does.
In my plan, I raise and address the constitutional problem briefly.

Except what Joey D suggested actually would help the African-American community in droves. It wouldn't fix all issues, but it would most certainly help to eliminate at least one of the biggest issues facing African-Americans, young African-American boys/men in particular. It could be done in a legal, non-racist manner, could potentially create more jobs in of itself and, if successful, could also be used as a springboard to address other issues as well.

Institutional Inequality does not sit in a vacuum. It's a multi-layered issue that requires a variety of different ideas and solutions. There is no one-size-fits-all solution (or, at least none that's realistic).

Also, from what I remember, your plan to help African-Americans basically amounted to Communism with a black majority (if not exclusivity) and racially-defined eminent domain, except with no compensation to the previous property owners. With all due respect, just because you have a plan, and your plan is the "only" plan, doesn't mean it's a good plan that should be pursued, lest you want to cause major economic, legal and social turmoil.

 

[Dotini]

I do not think that black people need some kind of aid.

Therefore, there is no basis for further discussion. I'm done.

 

[Danoff]

Therefore, there is no basis for further discussion. I'm done.

You'll be back later saying the same thing.

 

[TexRex]

I still think this is an attention grab. Put out an idea that's likely to attract criticism (attention) and keep traipsing around it without meaningful engagement with those making genuine attempts at discussion.

 

[Dotini]

You'll be back later saying the same thing.

Possibly, but unlikely. Once you've declared that racism must be legal and black people don't need aid, you've gone off the reservation of respectability as far as I'm concerned. Please don't bother me with any further replies, I've sentenced you to a week on my ignore list.

 

[Danoff]

Possibly, but unlikely. Once you've declared that racism must be legal and black people don't need aid, you've gone off the reservation of respectability as far as I'm concerned.

Still lacking a substantive argument. Your position here is "this cannot be respected on its face", which is just intellectually lazy.

 

[Boston77]

Looks like someone’s been into that free weed.

 

[NotThePrez]

Possibly, but unlikely. Once you've declared that racism must be legal...

Which it has to be if you want the 1st Amendment to have anything resembling legitimacy. Tolerance, however, is another thing.

...and black people don't need aid...

Bruh. Not even close.

Edit: In other (and humorous at least to me) news, Gun stocks have decreased and are projected to get to more "normal" levels due to a lack of civil unrest and the news of a potential COVID-19 vaccine.

I'm hoping ammo prices go down as well, mostly so that I can no longer hear some of my friends complain about it.

 

[huskeR32]

Once you've declared that racism must be legal

You keep using this phrase, but I remain very unclear on what it even means.

Things that racists might do to harm others or violate their rights should already be prosecutable under existing laws, yes? If someone harasses, assaults, or murders somebody, then they'll be charged with harassment, assault, or murder.

Things that unfairly disadvantage people of color, such as police brutality and the "war on drugs" can and should be addressed with laws that, while beneficial to people of color, don't need to be written specifically for them; everybody should be protected from such things. (Oddly, you seem to be rejecting such suggestions.)

Once all the actual behavior is covered by laws, what's left? Is your contention here that we should outlaw racist thoughts and points of view? I'll attempt to set aside my substantial surprise to actually encounter somebody promoting the policing of thought and simply ask: "How?"