‘You Are Done’: The letter sent to King by the F.B.I (2014)
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
-------------------------------------------
House of Representatives, U.S.
Part of Congressional Record --- Free
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND NAACP IN COLLUSION TO FORCE SCHOOL INTEGRATION IN VIRGINIA
Address by Honorable Harry Flood Byrd before the Richmond Kiwanis Club, Richmond, Va
Extension of remarks of HON. WATKINS M. ABBITT of Virginia IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, April 3, 1957
-------------------------------------------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
Folks forget or underestimate how bitter the opposition to the Civil Rights Movement was.
I was taught to gut a squirrel by the son of a freed slave who lived behind the home in Virginia where my family retired to, he had worked alongside my grandfather as a sharecropper on my paternal grandmother's father's farm.
and it's worth noting that that county was one of the last to integrate in Virginia, facilitated by student teachers from a college in a nearby town whose post office is named for Watkins M. Abbitt.
It's especially jarring to understand this in the context of the utterly racist "war on terror", which is just racism under cover. Racists can't use the n-word any more, so they invented "terrorist" to continue their bigotry and hatred of cultures they've deemed inferior.
Its one thing to consider the West to be morally and technologically superior with regards to civil rights - its another thing to remember that our governments were the principle violators of civil rights, just a few short decades ago. What the hate-leaders tell us to think about the mullahs and Iran, we could easily have thought about our own nations just a half a lifetime ago...
Or where they'd still like to take us. The only problem they have with Ayatollahs is that they call God by the wrong name.
Do you think that subsistence-working at Only Fans, or the local strip club is a better alternative?
For every 'women in sacks' argument that can be made, there is a street downtown where women put themselves in immense danger just to be able to feed their kids, pay their medical bill debts, get themselves some kind of safety net...
Same shit, different social flavor.
https://letterboxd.com/film/americas-war-against-women/watch...
I couldn't live in a state which allows its police forces to murder with impunity, for example.
The point is that the moral authority we claim over other states is a fallacy. Until we are actually protecting civil rights to the extent we expect of other nations, we are hypocritically justifying our own states heinous track record.
Alas, this seems to be understood pretty well by the ruling classes, who have subjugated human rights to mean "this gives us a right to justify the destruction of sovereign states and their peoples' we have deemed inferior".
Not under that much cover, just the more overt part of it directed at a different demographic than the primary foci of earlier rounds of US racism (though it provided a lot of excuse for actions directed more in line with classic US racism, and set the stage for the renaissance of more classicly directed, out-and-proud racism that has characterized the Trump era.)
The "terrorism" tranche of this hate culture is particularly jarring, since the ones claiming moral altitude over 'terrorists' are delivering far, far more terrorism than their supposed enemies. It's just been homogenized.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQGiEbj_GR0
"I have a feeling in a few years people are going to be doing what they always do when the economy tanks. They will be blaming immigrants and poor people"
Like if you're going to get patriotic about post-enlightenment values and institutions, that's one thing... if you're going to just act like a bigoted, might-makes-right, my-country-right-or-wrong, personality-worshiping, science-denying, uneducated xenophobic dipshit, then you don't have much to be proud of.
1: https://www.wlky.com/article/forced-busing-anniversary-50-lo...
2: https://www.louisville.com/redlining-louisville-dividing-lin...
The Warmth of Other Suns is a very good book for filling some of that hole in your education. I am not sure if I wasn't taught about the Great Migration at all or was taught about it for 10 minutes but definitely did not get out of school with much understanding of this aspect of American history.
i have a blog post about this: https://pietersz.co.uk/2023/08/racism-culture-different/
The other oddity is a tendency to lump everyone non-white together. Think of phrases such as "global majority".
Liberal Americans said race is arbitrary in my experience. And people who said gender identity should be respected believed it was fixed.
For example, take the example I gave above. People will not accept self-identify of "race" and have their own ideas of what someone "really is". In America it is often based on the one drop laws of segregation: someone whose ancestry is predominately white can be considered "black".
Also, consider the term I mentioned, coined by liberal Americans. It embeds the racist assumption that the world is divided into white and non-white people: that everyone who is not white one group.
A lot of liberal Americans argue against this.
It was a little tense at school for, maybe, a few hours, but mostly it was just confusion - WTF is going on?. But after that, it was cool. All the kids quickly realized we're all basically the same - we all hated homework and were intimidated by girls, the usual adolescent stuff. I didn't know it at the time, but the school deseg program was one of the most impactful events of my childhood.
(You can kind of blame real-estate agents to a degree. There was an interesting indie documentary on it that played last year.)
We, as Americans have had our “mask off” moment now and are openly declaring ourselves the preeminent empire on the planet. It’s simply that we are withdrawing from our globalist support structures due to a wide variety of forecast reasons along side that, which is confusing to many.
It was our liberal values and performance internally by the Democrats that gave our people as sort of comforting story before. We do it for the good of others we give we topple dictators etc.
I am a deeply “real politik” person and I don’t think you average right leaning American ever thought otherwise. It was somewhat ironically the hope yet no-change left Americans (who i have counted myself among) who tried to give it the thinnest veneer of responsibility.
The greatest thing we provided the world was order, for a time. That seems true of almost any mature empire.
Simply that a type of order was enforced to build a global money-ist theory of society and and market + trade platform.
I might, wrongly, argue that many of these regions both would have continued in the chaos and death they otherwise were already participating in, but i'd also accept that the Dutch in Africa, English in the Caribbean and China, etc all introduced net new outside chaotic aspects on purpose. I'd also accept that attempts at order by the American's ultimately resulted in chaos, especially of course in the middle east.
As to south america, this I'll acknowledge of course was an history of interference, one that is hard to argue the contra-positive since communism in almost all regions of the world failed to develope a long term stable order which was both culturally, trade, and fiscally sustainable, with many falling to a worse state after these outcomes.
Every other attempt at a different path elsewhere was undercut by military coups, invasions, economic blockades. One would hope that communism/socialism would be robust to destabilization efforts, but it was not the case. Capitalism also took time to develop, such as various attempts in the Italian city states before first taking root in Denmark. Hopefully, a new system of peace and cooperation will replace our brutal empire.
I think you're the type of person that when wrong sorta talks about a bunch of adjacent topics to try to avoid the point of admiting that you were wrong.
The Sino-Soviet bloc and the Warsaw Pact controlled roughly a third of the world's population, an immense percentage of the Earth's landmass, and practically every natural resource required for autarky. They had nuclear parity, massive industrial bases, and their own closed global trading network (COMECON). If a system with that level of geographic, demographic, and military shielding cannot sustain itself, it is not due to a lack of opportunity.
It is prima-facie absurd to claim "it just wasn't given a chance"
White folks, that is. Black Americans are acutely aware of it.
Civil Rights legislation is being rolled back, to enthusiastic cheers. A lot of people never got over the Civil War, and are still trying to prove that somehow they were right all along.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/24/us/politics/justice-depar...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/14/southern-sta...
You had a generation of people making legal, hiring, sentencing, admission, loan decisions that smoothly transitioned from enforcing the law to being very concerned about standards or however they personally decided was the best way to publicly approach it within their little political sphere.
Then they selected and trained the next generation of administrators, bureaucrats, and enforcers about the "right" way to do this work. A lot of things have changed but at no point did this process end in any meaningful way.
We live downstream of that where people often parrot the same dogwhistles uncritically 40 years later without understanding how deeply racist they are.
https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/raci...
If anything, you can thank most of the repeal of things like reproductive rights, the Voting Rights Act, etc and enshrinement of corporate personhood, gerrymandering, etc to the explicitly conservative project of The Federalist Society who now have the ruling majority in the Supreme Court.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/27/federalis...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United...
The only similarity in that regard is party leadership which is owned by the corporations and the rich.
Poe's Law in action I guess.
So especially in these times, I think it's important that we do a little work to see where one another might coming from [assuming it's in good faith to begin with], rather than squandering our focus on destructive infighting from slight misunderstandings.
And as the old joke goes - How do you know if someone is a maggot? Don't worry, they'll tell you!
I get what you mean about quoting something out of context, but I always read the intent of that guideline as the opposite: that a reply should quote enough of the original to provide the context. Really only needed near the top of long/deep threads where the reply might be multiple screens below the nested replies above it. Summarizing also works, which always risks misinterpretation, but it's also good to get that interpretation out in the open (again assuming good faith).
One thing I still can't stand reading is the usenet-era "point-for-point" style that interleaves a sentence or two of quote alternating with response, back and forth for the whole post. It's not only noisy, it tends toward a very snippy tone as well.
The comment in question - go read a few pages of the poster's comment history and you will understand it was meant as sarcasm. The difficulty is that sarcasm takes social capital to execute, and the comment-in-isolation model eschews even having that type of reputation.
Now in this case it would have been relatively easy to avoid sarcasm (although tiring, and I would say we're worse off for it). But the same difficulty applies to straightforward communication as well - if someone is criticizing the DNC, are they doing it from a place of trying to reform and make it better, or are they trying to drive cynicism and apathy? You don't know unless you know them.
And while you can mitigate the problem by writing comments that appeal to some groupthink (marking you as part of the tribe) before making a nuanced point against some other bit of groupthink, this propagates the first groupthink (which is itself often a problem) as well as bad-faith commenters being able to perform the same pattern.
Maybe something like "/s"?
The other option would be to embed enough context in a comment that most good faith readers would understand that you, the writer, are not so dense and uncultured that you don't know extremely common knowledge.
If only there was a method for identifying how common certain kinds of knowledge are!
> The other option would be to embed enough context in a comment that most good faith readers would understand that you
I had described why this does not work in general.
<legacyTags:s xmlns:legacyTags="http://example.org/schemas/interaction-styles/biologic/prima...">
(PS the first paragraph was me introducing my new tag "<s>" which means sardonic)
</legacyTags:s>
States are aggressively attacking minority voting rights through several angles - reducing sites you can vote and hours you can vote at them, especially in minority areas, ID requirements that hurt people who don't own cars and thus don't need Drivers' Licenses (and are essentially a form of poll tax), and many other nefarious tactics.
I guess to put it more directly if we took a hypothetical black male named Steven and a hypothetical white female named Sally who have the same job, live in the same neighborhood, etc - what rights has been rolled back on Steven that were not on Sally.
Meanwhile a white neighborhood has dozens of polling places, each with many machines.
"Although we often talk in a partisan context about voter fraud and voter suppression and whether voters have access to the ballot, the reality is, over the past 25 years, we've greatly increased the convenience of voting for almost all Americans," said David Becker, the founder and executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research (CEIR), which authored the new report."
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/19/1238646047/voting-options-ear...
* real efforts by some Republican-led legislatures to restrict access at the margins*
The lies about early voting, the lies about voting machines and efforts in some state legislatures to roll back some of the election integrity and convenience measures
He says that they "almost all" failed -- meaning some are succeeding, and they're always disenfranchising the same people. The average is better, but that doesn't tell you anything about those worst affected.
He's also not talking about gerrymandering, which has gotten worse and worse over time.
If you actually read the article, you'll see that the argument is that, since the year 2000, it has (as of 2024) broadly become easier to vote. But:
"The South, with its history of slavery and Jim Crow laws, has long lagged behind when it comes to voting access. The CEIR data shows that, although some states have slowly started expanding options for voters, generally it is still the most difficult region for voters to cast a ballot."
And it's only gotten worse since. I strongly suggest you do some cursory research in the future before making comments like this.
(Also from NPR: https://www.npr.org/2024/03/05/1235521824/voter-turnout-race... )
The Republicans lost California because Pete Wilson and the Republican Party in California (late 1980’s) could not shut their mouths up, demonizing Hispanics at every turn, it turned the whole state around to the Democrats, and the same group is slowly but surely turning Texas blue with every year that goes by. And the same is also true of Arizona and New Mexico, just keep demonizing Hispanics. It’s not going work out in the long term.
The next governor of California will be a democrat of Hispanic dissent the Republicans had better be nice/respectful to him because they are losing the Southwest slowly but surely, every year, and being respectful also includes Mexico.
One of the more direct actions was the dismantling of affirmative action, which was an intentional set of rules set to undo some of this historical aggregated harm.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwa...
> You start out in 1954 by saying, “N$, n$, n$.” By 1968 you can’t say “n$”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N$, n$.”
And an extension of the progressive / conservative disagreement between how a system is designed vs. the impacts of a system determines its fairness and justness.
Edit: funny, I pre-sniped the sibling responses to your comment.
I mean, every law will inevitably impact different groups at least a little differently. I'm not a fan of obsessing about race every time a law is written, no.
>What alternative history must one subscribe to in order to believe that ignoring disparate impact won’t end in humans rights abuses?
This seems like sloppy reasoning. If a person's rights are being violated, they ought to be able to make that argument in court without reference to disparate impact.
What we've seen in the US is the 90s "judge people as individuals" paradigm has been replaced by a "racial collectivism" paradigm. In recent years, this new paradigm was initially mainstream on the left, then became mainstream on the right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg
The "racial collectivism" paradigm is corrosive to individual rights, no matter who wields it. Furthermore, collectivist activity on the part of one ethnic group ends up being countered by collectivist activity on the part of other ethnic groups, in a doom spiral. The result is descent into hateful sectarianism. Scroll through X on any Tuesday to see what I mean.
>nuclear testing and proliferation disproportionately impacted the Navajo nation especially because they had absolutely no recourse against it? Are we just supposed to say “tough luck”? “Might makes right?” “Should’ve gotten a better lawyer?”
Consider a hypothetical where the town near the nuclear test has a population which is a perfect microcosm of the US in terms of race, gender, age, class, etc. No "disparate impact" argument can be possibly made in this hypothetical, since all of the racial "collectives" are equally harmed.
Does this change the fact that the nuclear tests are harming people? Or the best approaches to the problem?
Racial collectivism just isn't a good approach. People are more responsive to the needs of others when they view them as fellow humans or fellow citizens, not representatives of alien collectives.
> I mean, every law will inevitably impact different groups at least a little differently. I'm not a fan of obsessing about race every time a law is written, no.
If it affected you directly, you might care.
Because it doesn't, you are in the position to pick and choose what you give your interest and energy to.
Where does that leave the equal protection clause?
What if a large portion of laws systematically impacts one group negatively?
What do you think the state is but a gigantic social engineering project?
I think a lot of people miss this or pretend that the conservative position is just old-school racism (although it definitely is sometimes). But there are really hard philosophical, ethical, and political questions at the base of a lot our political problems. I think it helps keep people from arguing past each other if they can find out where the really "hard" part of their political disagreement actually is.
______
> Your conservative friend is often baffled as to what you're even trying to say when you point out there's not enough high-paying jobs or affordable health plans for everyone.
> There's not supposed to be. The system requires an underclass. Someone's gotta clean the toilets.
> Capitalism, then, is a proving ground: it's how you demonstrate where in the hierarchy you deserve to be. Do you have more than you need, or less?
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs&list=PLJA_jUddXv...
If reactionaries place more importance on hierarchy, then shouldn't this mean accepting the hierarchy as it stands and knowing their place in it? Progressive beliefs are often seen as being a product of out of touch affluenza, so [stereotypical] progressives' relative direction in the hierarchy should be clear. Meanwhile the underclass below them with shittier jobs should make them feel content from being above a different group of people - illegal labor especially puts even more people below them!
Rather what they would seem to want is some other hierarchy where they sit higher. And while it's completely understandable to want to improve your position, it's specious to give this credit as some noble abstract belief in hierarchy rather than mere zero-sum scrapping to improve their lot.
So at least to me, reactionary propaganda exploiting people's sense of an [unfair] hierarchy doesn't seem like anything particularly different than reactionary propaganda exploiting people's sense of $whatever else to get them riled up and turn off their ability to reason or communicate. It's never actually about the lofty value, but rather emotional appeals to how you've been wronged so let's get revenge.
Those systems are not having disparate impats randomly. They were deaigned that way on purpose.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwa...
https://adams.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/supreme-cou...
I did not engaged in "well deep down". I said "the motivation is clearly that. Even openly stated again and again and again whenever in front of symphatetic audience"
The distinction between cultural differences and something like strict colorism make this a difficult issue to adjudicate. Correlation does not imply causation, and looking at nontrivial counter-examples should be helpful.
It's really difficult to argue the party's goal in gerrymandering is trying to prevent black people from gaining significant positions in government when the same party is electing and appointing black folks to significant positions in government.
I say this as a lefty.
There aren't enough rich people out there for Republicans to win elections based on the votes of people their policies actually help. They use things like racism and transphobia to energize voters among groups they hurt (such as folks relying on medicaid, social security, farm subsidies, clean air and water, etc.)
Again, you are conflating racism with passing policies that harm groups that correlate with race. Those are not the same thing.
The point of the Civil Rights Act was that many southern states were trying to stop black people from achieving office because they were black. They weren't trying to infringe the voting rights of white liberals. There is a world of difference between trying to end Medicare and trying to end Medicare... only for minorities.
Authors of the voting rights act understood that the former is so often a veneer for the latter that they are functionally the same thing. You are making the same argument as mid-century racist policymakers that were defeated by the VRA. Back then you would argue that Poll taxes and voter tests aren't illegal, they just prevent the indigent and uneducated from voting. Well those policies were the beating heart of Jim Crow, which the VRA intended to defeat.
You essentially argue that policymakers should enjoy the right to quietly undermine minority voting power up until the point where they explicitly say "and I'm doing this because I'm a racist targeting minorities". Well we've been there. It's been illegal to make laws directly against racial groups since reconstruction. This is why much of Jim Crow was built on a foundation of targeting adjacent traits rather than race specifically, and why many lament the defanging of the VRA.
You can't say this with a straight face. Before the civil rights act we literally had white's only sections of businesses. Separate-but-unequal was the apartheid of the South. That just doesn't exist anymore in any kind of open and accepted way, thank god.
>You essentially argue that policymakers should enjoy the right to quietly undermine minority voting power up until the point where they explicitly say "and I'm doing this because I'm a racist targeting minorities".
Again, I'm not saying that at all, the Supreme Court isn't saying that either. You are again conflating minorities as a singular voting bloc with a singular voting interest. The entire point here is that there is plenty of evidence that this is about politics, not about race.
I think gerrymandering is atrocious. I think we should move to a proportional voting system where gerrymandering is no longer achievable. The idea that 25% of a population can dictate government control to the other 75% of the population by drawing arbitrary lines is atrocious. I just think it's quite clear that this isn't happening to suppress the vote along racial lines.
The idea here is that I think it's quite plausible that black republicans are being used along gerrymandering line to help elect republicans. If it were about race... then black republicans would also need to be disenfranchised.
Jim Crow was very obviously terrible... it was also very overt and obvious. I grew up in Texas, and the idea that the right is a secret cabal of racists trying to create some kind of white government is insane. The idea that the general socioeconomic concerns of the black community put most black voters on the political left makes vastly more sense, and it also explains the significantly larger numbers of Hispanic representatives on the Texas right.
It's not one data point. There is plenty of evidence that this is about politics... not about race.
The majority of non-US democracies require ID to vote, and it's considered normal and un-controversial. Here in the US, there is a tempest in a teakettle because this has been deemed a "civil rights issue". It really illustrates the role that "civil rights" plays in modern US political discourse.
Americans manifestly do not have a right to possess a driver's license, it's a privilege. The process for obtaining one requires expenditure of time, energy, and money.
The only form of government "ID" that could presently meet the bar is social security cards, as every citizen has one by right. That is obviously a bad idea. There is no "move fast and break things" when it comes to democratic process. If something as important as this cannot be done right, then it should not be done. The right to vote is sacred and cannot be infringed upon, period.
Just get a state ID or passport then.
Stop. We can all see you argue in bad faith. You are at best incurious and naive, and at worst...
I have a state ID, a REAL ID. It was not particularly difficult to get. I'm a bit skeptical of the claim that there are major cross-national differences in difficulty here.
Thank you for reminding us that you aren't working three jobs in the same day to make ends meet, have disposable income and free time to collect the documents and get to the office twice,and live in a district where said office isn't half a day of driving (with the current gas prices) away.
And of course, you are fine with people with less affodances than you not being able to vote. Such moral character on top of your comfortable life.
Sure, I mean, going to the grocery store is also very oppressive. You need money, time, transport, etc.
>And of course, you are fine with people with less affodances than you not being able to vote. Such moral character on top of your comfortable life.
I have no issue if people want to implement measures to make it easier to get ID. But given the state of US democracy, election security currently seems important enough to me that voter ID laws seem reasonable. That's how policy works--there are tradeoffs. Want me to pearl-clutch about your moral character in allowing the country to descend into fascism through a contested election?
That's the big "if". That's why the current representatives who pretend to want to secure the elections are only pretending. That's why you are not answering in good faith, because you are ignoring/handwaving that crucial part.
>Sure, I mean, going to the grocery store is also very oppressive. You need money, time, transport, etc.
Going to the grocery store is not a constitutional right. We already went through this vacuous argument when Republicans pretended that "you have to show ID to have unlimited pasta at the Olive Garden" as an excuse for their sudden request to force states to impose ID requirements just before the midterms. Again: bad faith argument.
I live in a country where there is ID requirements to vote. It is also a place where we use paper ballots, and polling places have never queues longer than five minutes, and voting only happens on Sundays. There is no mail voting. There is no gerrymandering. This is all possible because the whole system is made to make voting convenient and always has been. This can't be said of the USA which has an old and present history of massive voter suppression and electoral manipulation. The current push from Republicans to "secure" the elections is a complete bad faith attempt because they are completely open, at all levels, this is only to cancel and contest Democrat votes. That's what you describe as "election security currently seems important enough to me that voter ID laws seem reasonable". You completely ignore that, as well as the lies behind the argument:
"From 16,000 to 185 to Zero: Trump’s Claims of Illegal Voting in Nevada Fizzle"
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/24/us/politics/nevada-voters...
https://archive.is/20260924155025/https://www.nytimes.com/20...
16000 lies.
You'd pass this into law and then have it take effect 2-4 years out, and if you can't go and secure yourself an ID after 2-4 years of notice you aren't a functional adult.
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/05/1140778386/real-id-enforcemen...
https://www.votebeat.org/2025/06/09/proof-of-citizenship-doc...
It is also funny you have at people not being real adults when the vice president of the United States - himself very worried about election fraud - is saying people in Alaska may be confused between two Sullivans on the ballot because "people are busy. People have lives. People have jobs". Apparently he thinks a large proportion of Alaskans aren't functioning adults. Funny, that.
These are all tasks that a functional adult in the world needs to do regardless of background / race / creed / etc.
It's not bad faith to say hey as a functional adult you should go get a fucking ID.
What is the % of people that honestly do not have one? Pass a law and give people 4 years to go get one.
Like why must you insist on treating people like hopeless children?
65 USD for a passport card (2) (the cheapest passport option).
Both require attending in-person appointments.
For contrast:
Voting is compulsory in Australia. Citizens may register to vote entirely online, and may prove their identity using a Medicare card or citizenship certificate (or driver's license or passport, ofc) (3). (Aside: this page of FAQs explicitly calls out that these two means of proving ID have been added as a response to increasing feedback from young people, disabled people, and people living in remote areas about having less access to driver's license or passport.)
Obtaining an Australian Medicare card is free, and citizens may prove their identity using a birth certificate (no need for it to be certified) and submitting their application + supporting documents by email (or by mail, but that costs postage) (4).
Free, and no in-person appointment.
1. https://portal.ct.gov/dmv/licenses-permits-ids/get-non-drive...
2. https://travel.state.gov/en/passports/apply/adults.html#acco...
3. https://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/enrolment.htm
4. https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/enrolling-medicare-if-y...
The physical Social Security card was never meant to be used as ID (the number on it is, de facto, another story).
Obtaining ID cards in other developed countries requires the same payment of application fees and visits to offices, so those steps being required in the US, too, aren't any refutation of the OP's comment.
For a point of comparison, here in Finland we require that a voter has a valid ID, that is an ID card, a driver's licence with a photo in it, or a passport. Now what if you _don't_ have one of those IDs? Easy, you go to the police station and get yourself a temporary ID, which is by law given free of charge. You do need to get a passport photo taken for that, but those can usually be done in about 10 minutes for around 10 Euros.
And of course there are other things outside of the ID issue which make the elections not rigged against minorities. Simple things like having the actual election day on a Sunday, the polling stations being usually in walking distance in cities -- people living in the countryside most likely have a car -- and that said polling stations tend to be in schools, shops, and other such places where people would be going anyway. Oh, and you usually also get polling stations popping up before the actual election day so that people may vote in advance, in said shops, schools, and similar assorted places.
---
The US could totally start doing ID mandates, but the problem is that in the US, their usage doesn't seem to be out of a genuine worry about election integrity or other similar concerns, but out of voter disenfranchisement, which again, hits minority populations disproportionately hard.
This doesn't sound like a big difference in effort from the last time I got myself an ID.
>Oh, and you usually also get polling stations popping up before the actual election day so that people may vote in advance, in said shops, schools, and similar assorted places.
Yep, the US also has early voting and vote by mail.
>their usage doesn't seem to be out of a genuine worry about election integrity or other similar concerns
Gallup says 80% of people of color in the US favor a voter ID requirement: https://news.gallup.com/poll/652523/americans-endorse-early-...
And you probably don't live in a dense urban area, or at least a minority-heavy part of one.
I grew up in Michigan. In the suburb where my parents lived, there were 8-10 voting machines for a not-large population and voting was a matter of pulling in, walking inside, casting our ballot, and leaving.
In the college town less than 20 miles away it was a very different story - far fewer machines per person, polling places far away from where students live so they have to find a ride to get there, and more - and this was an intentional tactic to discourage youth voting.
Allocation and staffing of DMV and similar offices where one has to go in order to get an ID are manipulated in the same way.
Interesting. Michigan doesn't even require ID to vote.
https://www.michigan.gov/sos/elections/voting/vote-on-electi...
There goes your credibility.
As a separate point, they preemptively mention that a similar disparity exists re/ getting an ID, which is what you're trying to add as a requirement. It's a straightforward argument.
So where do you get "that Michigan makes it difficult to get an ID for voter suppression purposes"?
As President Lyndon Johnson said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket.”
Racism isn’t about race at its core, it’s redirected anger from being exploited and abused by people in power. There is a reason people in power always blame “the immigrants” or “the Jews”; it’s redirection.
And it worked. Politicians do this because it works.
Not saying that you’re wrong, but there’s more to it. Even when not directed by those in power, some people need an external reason for their own failures. They need a target for their anger that is not themselves.
https://glaeser.scholars.harvard.edu/publications/political-...
Ah yes, white people are oblivious to racism and black people are systemically abused. This is just the standard Democrat narrative. And it's fine to believe that, but again, it's far from an objective non-partisan, non-flame-baity take.
So go and put them in the ground next to their disgusting traitor ancestors. The abolitionists should've made sure to break the southern slaver class any would miss them for good.
Any reasonable person knows it's wrong to deny an other human their humanity to enrich themselves. They should've retroactively made owning slaves as well as helping someone else keep slaves a crime punishable by a quick death and redistribution of all their worldly possessions among those they enslaved.
The descendants of the slavers still lust for twisted reimagined memory of former stolen wealth and power to this day. We can see it was a mistake to show them mercy. Let those southern trees carry strange white fruits!
</rant>
When you are used to privilege, equality looks like oppression.
Why gut squirrels
We do it to pigs and chickens and cows too. Its a very early step in the slaughtering and butchering process - usually the first step after the animal has been killed.
Or because you have a history of being in that position and feel like it is important to pass the knowledge on?
Sounds bucolic.
The battle of the present (ICE abuse, Social media speech suppression, ..) to win the government back by the people and for the people can still be won - but it hinges all on this November.
What makes you think they've stopped?
See also how the robber barons of the 1930s (Rockefeller, JP Morgan, etc) already tried to overthrow the government to establish a fascist military dictatorship.
Non-violent protests have a place. On occasion though, you need to hit the system where it hurts in order for it to take you seriously.
Even if Biden's strategy was serve the super rich, while minimally "throwing the dog a bone" (the average person), not much changed. Sure, he appointed Lina Kahn, but per usual she was also sabotaged within the FTC and outside of it had no support.
The comparison to FDR, who was supremely hated by Wall street, who banned any bankers from attending Bretton Woods, who oversaw the New Deal, etc, etc is laughable.
I remember reading the online news about those primaries as they happened. Bernie wins this state in a landslide. Bernie wins that state in a landslide. Suddenly he's not on the ballot in most of the remaining states. At the end he doesn't have enough votes, oh dear too bad so sad. Some sort of investigation happened, but concluded the DNC has the absolute right to run primaries any way it chooses to.
> Suddenly he's not on the ballot in most of the remaining states
Can you list these states? This should be easy to verify.
> concluded the DNC has the absolute right to run primaries any way it chooses to
Can you cite a law that tells private parties who they must support?
So, the Clinton-controlled DNC from 2016 put Trump in the White House.
The positive message is that since then the Democrats have been infused by Sanders-like independent Democrats that want to do the right thing, but we must keep on pushing to rid and guard the DNC and party administration off the corrupt billionaire influences.
If you look outside the US Bernie is actually a moderate. We're not talking about abolishing money or seizing the means of production. Just maybe, somewhere between minting a new trillionaire every year and pregnant women sleeping outside we can find a compromise.
Unlimited money for wars all over the planet, but if you lose your job and have a chronic illness you're screwed most of the time.
Sometimes your screwed even if you have a job and good health insurance. It's a magic game of musical chairs to see what's covered or not. What's out of pocket , etc.
Although it can be argued this should be handled state by state instead. Unemployment pays about 1k per week in Washington , but only 400$ a week in Illinois.
My big fear is a right leaning federal government will eventually dismantle the social safety net entirely. If not that expect rent seeking, ie paying fees to private companies to get your social security checks
To me, it all seems to boil down to the notion that Bernie would credibly have "drained the swamp," which would have effectively tanked the careers of a lot of long-serving Democratic folks who were not aligned with his populist/progressive agenda. Simply by hiring people that would have aligned with his vision, this was such a threat to existing power, it had to be stopped. Yes, the Rs are worse (in my opinion), but this gives me plenty of distrust for the Ds. Institutions eventually become more about institutional survival than about their "core mission."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_Democratic...
Why are you just completely making things up?
For some reason I remember that moment as vividly as I remember pulling out in the car with my mom on the way to school and hearing that a plane had hit the WTC.
The Sanders campaigns just made it painfully obvious to anybody paying attention.
The truth is that Americans hate the working class. They idolize the super rich.
My step dad use to quote bible verses to me trying to prove Obama was the literal antichrist. Before that it was the evil Bush and his oil cronies. Now it’s Trump, in two years it will be someone else. Same as it ever was.
By all rights there shouldn't be one already, but we're lucky the democracy abolitionists are fairly incompetent.
Or, alternatively, did we cease to have a democracy?
Using the DOJ to interfere in state elections they have no jurisdiction in, and having masked men abduct people and ignore court orders regarding their disposition is just about as authoritarian as it gets.
Those are all new things that have substantially eroded - or removed all together the idea of democracy in less than two years.
If one side shuts the other out of power, that's when we'll finally get the civil war many have been predicting for a long time.
Hopefully the framework to limit power can stay in place, in spite of all the calls to change it, abolish the senate, pack the court, make sure to punish/"hold accountable" red voters, etc.
It's possible, but not very credible, to argue that in a situation where direct democracy doesn't exist.
The closest we have to voted for these things rather than voted for these people is polls, which overwhelmingly illustrate that most people oppose those things.
We'll know more after the election, if people supported those things.
> It would be pretty undemocratic if a president tries to stay in office age losing an election
Yes, the current president tried exactly that, in a violent insurrection, and has interfered in national elections since regaining power.
and it's probably not just election tampering, because polls close to elections also show support.
Since the usa isn't a direct democracy, this isn't actually true. People vote for representatives, not things.
As for what happens to the representatives which have, since the last election, done things people oppose? We'll find out in a week or so! Looks like most people won't be voting for them.
Was voting for a narcissistic treason weasel predictably going to lead to this? I would say - and did say - yes, without question. He already incited a violent insurrection once, rather than admit he lost an election. But people voted for cheaper groceries and deporting violent criminals.
As difficult as it is to believe, there are many tens of millions of people who think that Trump is a smart business man because he was portrayed that way on The Apprentice. They think the promises of this known huckster and flim-flam man were worth the bandwidth spent delivering them to televisions. They think that FOX News opinion show personalities are qualified to administer the country's government. They didn't vote for fascism, because they don't know what that word means. Many could not even reliably number the branches of government or describe them accurately.
Jan 6, fake electors scheme, etc. This time it will be a lot worse.
I suppose you're a bigger believer in government competence than I.
Totally normal stuff in a democracy, don't we agree?
Just imagine the shittiest country that you can think of. Now imagine everything I described above happening in that country. Now imagine how you would react to that, and how it would be covered in the news and punditry.
So was this person Romney in 2012? McCain in 2008? Kerry in 2004? Gore in 2000?
Any one of those presidents would've abolished democracy?
Somehow we picked the right candidate every time?
The average constitution lasts about 18 years. The US constitution has lasted almost 250. Statistically, that's quite unlikely if a candidate ran on a platform of abolishing democracy in every election.
What
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/lifespan-written-constitut...
Most countries are not as politically stable as the US. We're very privileged in that way.
What a level-headed, reasonable know-nothing you are, sitting above all this unreasonable jockeying.
I am not surprised though, you live in a culture where people can lecture others that the Bible told them Obama was Satan. You don't know what actual politics is anymore.
There's a very easy method to tell if someone making that claim is a liar: ask "what major ideological compromise are they making to save democracy?" if the answer is "none" or close to it, they're full of shit.
'Cause if fascism is really our doorstep, you'd think they'd be gunning for the broadest, most indefatigable anti-fascist coalition possible; instead of the narrowest, most pure one they think they can get away with.
People, including individuals, aren't single-minded, rational, or scientifically literate.
In the case of anti-fascism, many on the left earnestly believe that a far-left candidate is the solution because their bubble tells them that their views are dominant. After all, they and many of their friends aren't excited to vote for the moderates, but would vote for someone more left.
I'll sacrifice a lot of things I care about for leadership that would shore up democracy (I'm not sure how, though fixing redistricting is a big one), but it's seen as normal and admirable to refuse to compromise.
1. The liars: people cynically playing up fears of "losing democracy" as a political tactic to support some other political programs. I think this is especially obvious from candidates, activists, political operatives, etc. -- people sophisticated enough and engaged enough to know and think about what they're doing in a serious way.
2. The un-serious people: those you describe. Basically irrational people who believe a jumble of things without exercising the ability to prioritize or disengage the contradictions.
I don't think the boundaries between these phenomena are hard ones (e.g. you can often push un-serious people into liar territory by challenging them to prioritize).
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/hegseth-fires-the-pent...
Or it isn't as if top oil executives are changing their business trip plans to the United Arab Emirates:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exxon-chevron-cancel...
No need to think anything important is going to happen with an insane president (did you know that "dumb" ends with a "b"? Did you know that?) surrounded by incompetent sycophants.
We can all see the equivalence here: some people said that Obama was the antichrist, some people say now that Trump is senile, violent, racist and unhinged. Clearly they are both wrong. Both sides. Clearly. It is obvious that both are decent, educated men who just carry their elected duties.
Also explain why only one side of the "uniparty" is very, very vocal against ranked-choice voting. Like, to the point of banning it by law. All of them Republicans.
Weird, uh? But please tell us again how much Democrats and Republicans are the same and what is your solution.
Beyond just that, if there is a uniparty, then why is Elon spending half a billion dollars in electoral races?
It's not that there's a uniparty, it's that as a result of Citizen's United, parties don't need to represent you anymore. They represent their money donors instead. Money is speech now, and as the wealth disparity grows it becomes a bigger megaphone and drowns out the voices of hundreds of millions.
It's communism. Cold War. All there is to it. As with much other evil, this was done because the FBI feared that Big Bad Uncle Ivan will somehow gain influence over this leader and use it for leverage in the Cold War.
The same multitudes of extramarital affairs and other racy and embarrassing stuff that Dr King took part in, as a reverend, could be used by communists to blackmail him into working for them or making decisions that favour the Soviet Union. Is it far-fetched? Sure. Is it, in hindsight, paranoid and stupid? Yep. But can we say with certainty, without hindsight, that it was impossible, when you have an entire organization dedicated to rooting out hidden influence of the enemy in an existential covert global struggle?
And it wasn't all paranoia. The Soviet Union under Stalin was extremely good at infiltrating American academia, civil society and government. The Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, etc. The US government went from ignoring the problem and dealing with it so incompetently actual Soviet spies were in almost cabinet-level positions, to hysterically over-reacting and ruining the lives of people like Dr King "just in case".
(well, the Russian Federation, not the USSR)
Feed people. Engage in mutual aid. Build communities. Prepare candidates. Grow networks. Then vote. Voting is the last and easiest part.
That is how Communists get their cultural revolution, you know.
There seems to be great demand for a party that actually makes life better for people, so great that you can just name your party that, win an election and do anything you want to. For some reason there's very little supply of parties that actually make life better and don't just pretend they want to.
That is how blowhards get Red-Scares and Cold Wars, you know. And exactly the abuses OP posting is decrying.
Back then the establishment used the CIA/FBI to attack black civil rights movements. They also used it to attack things that were associated with the Soviet Union, including associating black civil rights with communism and socialism, like you're doing here.
Maybe this was not about everybody and not about you?
A slight challenge here. November is a sizable opportunity to move towards that aim. Every day after is another opportunity to live it out in your life, community, neighborhood, finances, religion, and family...
You can't vote for anyone who'll abolish the FBI, CIA and the rest of the elite groups that actually run things
> On March 8, 1971, an activist group called the Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI burglarized a local office of the FBI in Media, Pennsylvania, and stole classified documents. Parts of them exposed a secret FBI operation called COINTELPRO. Those documents were later sent to newspapers and members of the United States Congress.
Shame some societies digress into this state in the first place, even bigger shame when they keep sliding deeper and deeper into it.
Fast forward to today, and the only difference is they now own all the Social Media and A.I. If you want truth in journalism, support small local journalists, and ignore corporate news.
At least now we have LLMs that can produce this kind of stuff at human-overwhelming rates, so that is progress.
the corners of the internet that you frequent have much more eloquent haters than the ones I'm used to
There are quite a few covert psychopaths on here that happily twist knives and hurt people.
It's just hidden under layers and layers of indirection, jargon and plausible deniability. Not unlike your standard boardroom I guess.
Uploaded 16 years ago... I can't believe that a video I thought was so hilarious back then is dating me so hard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wpjWVRSoQM
Gold pot of a channel.
It is true that this is heavily moderated and that this is one of the more pleasant spaces, but it is also precisely the moderation style that is being weaponized.
As I said, the toxicity gets hidden in layers and layers of jargon, misdirection and plausible deniability. It gets a veneer of civilty applied, which, somewhat surprisingly, makes it hit even harder, because fighting back is a lot harder, as there is nothing immediately visible to fight back against. It just stings.
It's not just attacking but simultaneously gaslighting. Which has been what the whole internet has been doing since everything became twitter fwiw.
What I said is also not to be understood as "HN bad", because if I would feel that way, I would not be commenting here.
Are we going to play "prove me right" here? :D
Come on, this is just a direct personal attack. Go play better. Hide it with a more elaborate construct.
Instead of leaving it with the moderation to prove without a doubt that someone is trolling, one can default to assume trolling and demand prove that it is not the case.
As it is impossible to bring up proof for either of those things, the house wins and people make damn sure to quintuple-check if their messaging is decent.
I don't think that that is a good solution, but the status quo was horrible, so maybe the pendulum swinging in another direction for a while might help us discover saner solutions.
That and the fact that each increase in difficulty filters out people that do not have the capability to pass it. So the pool shrinks every time.
Though, valid counterpoint: Eventually prefabs emerge and get shared.
But then we innovate once more. We always did. We always will
Do not even try?
I'm not sure if can truly let this pass as a more sophisticated construct, but I do appreciate the opener that already invalidates dismissal.
That's a good tactic. Thank you for playing.
I feel great btw :) Thank you for your concern.
I was genuinely wondering if we would see the end of it, but of course, no.
But I like this, because it's such an obvious strawman and bad faith reinterpration by an account consisting of random jumbled letters.
Thank you. This is background radiation one can live with. Thanks for making things normal again.
@hypfer I'm curious, can you understand / identify with at least some of what I'm sharing below?:
A lot of people (likely near 100% of people) have their own internal beliefs about the world and they are largely commenting primarily to validate that belief (I am literally doing it with this comment). Like you often can see both what the person objectively wrote but then also get a feeling for some internal belief that motivated this specific comment.
And naturally, people are emotionally attached to their internal beliefs. And so sometimes comments are less a sharing of ideas and more a factually coded emotional rationalization of their internal beliefs. And when you read a comment like this that goes against one of your own beliefs, it may feel like an attack.
To me the distinction though is the motivation of the person on the other side. My interpretation is that true trolls have a motivation to incite emotions whereas most other people simply are trying to validate their own beliefs, despite potentially doing it in a way that is not emotionally palatable to all perspectives.
Separately, for you (hypfer), do you agree that there could be some amount of "hostile attribution bias" here? I saw this term while searching about this topic and to me it would explain both your perspective of feeling personally attacked and others perspective of feeling like that's actually not at all what's happening.
I meant nothing personal, but you took it personally. To me, someone saying "hey, maybe you're bringing your baggage to this and interpreting this differently than the speaker meant" is not at all a personal attack.
To you, I guess it is.
So, yeah, HN is full of conversations where people politely suggest you may be wrong. It's never bothered me.
However, it often uses queer lingo - words that folks might think aren't notable, but queer folks will instantly recognize as an attack.
Refusing to call a gay man's husband a husband, but subsisting in friend or partner. Calling someone biologically male. Etc.
These get deployed quite subtly here, and because none of the words are slurs, they don't get moderated. (Though HN also permits overt slur usage -- search for the r-slur and you'll find plenty of cases.)
I wonder how much of it is generational? I see something similar in the way second wave feminists rightly hated being called girls, whereas it's not as much of an issue for the younger generations because they didn't have those experiences.
The difficulty is that partner is also acceptable and polite, especially when gender or marital status is unknown.
It's subtle, which is exactly the sort of thing this thread is about -- ways to subtly exclude someone while appearing polite to outsiders.
Reminds me of the recent thread about LLMs controversial take on humanity: we are all terribly cynical, hallucinate importance, and we are all bad/good deep down inside.
The problem is that outside of "where's my keys? what are we having for lunch?", most language is a symptom of people's agendas. Its a rarefied elite environment that takes things literally, and acts in good faith.
I don't think this is psychopathic, as much as we're apes -- and speaking literally and in good faith about relatively abstract topics takes a considerable amount of training and is, in general, psychologically fragile (ie., its easy to be tilted).
Compare the actual human rights records of the Western sphere (war crimes, crimes against humanity, violations of human rights at massive scale) with those of the nations we are being taught are inferior: same effect.
Or for any of us who were around for the Snowden/Assange chapter of HN, who supported the effort to expose the US' heinous crimes - there are still massive sections of western culture who are fundamentalist in their superiority. You can find them in the downvoted and dead-flagged comments section.
I see this statement repeated often with no supporting evidence. Seems a little ironic!
Is this claim falsifiable?
Would you be able to name the 2nd or 3rd most propagandized populations, in your view? Do you know anything about propaganda in e.g. the USSR or North Korea?
"Historian Sergo Mikoyan claimed that decades prior to the early 1960s, offices and stores had to submit papers with examples of their typewriters' typeface to local KGB branches so that any printed text could be traced back to the source, to prosecute those who had used the typewriter to produce material deemed illegal. With the introduction of photocopying machines, the KGB's Fifth Directorate and Agitprop Department required individuals to get authorization to use printing office photocopiers to prevent the mass production of unapproved material, though restrictions could be bypassed by bribing employees."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samizdat
That's what an actual heavily-propagandized population looks like. Meanwhile, I can open up any social media app and be greeted by a sea of anti-American slop.
Americans are among the most propagandized because they are taught theirs is the greatest among all nations from birth, even though it really, really isn’t.
That's not what it means to be the "most propagandized".
In any case, as an American, I wasn't taught that the US is the "greatest among all nations" from birth.
But I think there are some quite good arguments for this claim nonetheless. Here's a nice detailed article from a historian which lays out the evidence: https://acoup.blog/2022/07/08/collections-is-the-united-stat...
The world has gotten much better while under US hegemony by the way. This has generally been a peaceful and prosperous era by historical standards. https://thumb.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/The...
Usually the anti-US argument depends on implicitly assuming that:
* All the good things which have happened, would've happened without the US. (Example: The global abolitionist movement started in the US. We'll just assume that would've happened somewhere else.)
* All the bad things which have happened are the direct fault of the US. Other actors are deemed irrelevant/not morally culpable/etc. (The US gets blamed for the actions of people in other countries even if it has a weak to nonexistent relationship with them. Other countries are not generally blamed for the actions of their partners/allies.)
* Bad things that the US successfully prevented or interrupted would somehow have been prevented or interrupted via other means. (Example: Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. We'll just implicitly assume other nation(s) would've taken a lead role in enforcing territorial integrity norms.)
* If the US could've done something, but did not, they are also morally culpable for that omission. (Example: Rwanda genocide.)
It's a "heads I win, tails you lose" type of game. We aren't being judged based on whether our presence makes the world a better place. Rather, if there's any delta between the US and a hypothetical perfect nation, that makes us evil.
Observe how things work: Listen to Europeans complain about the US "playing world police", and also insist that the US should do more to police Eastern Europe. They'll claim the US bears responsibility for the Ukraine War by expanding NATO, and also insist that Ukraine should be armed to the teeth. Naturally, e.g. Poland's push to join NATO is left out: only the US is morally culpable (see second bullet point above).
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
This is not a criticism of their moderation style, this is simply reporting how they describe it.
I think we have different definitions of pleasure.
This is a relatively dry place for any kind of conversation other than hyper logic conversation devoid of empathy or humour.
On certain tech topics, it can be very informative. On anything where there is a conflict between the topic and how the base makes money, there's a lot of down voting and sad rhetoric. As a result, you rarely get to discuss the harms of AI or certain oligarchs, e.g. musk, zuck, bezos, Russia, Israel.
This is a place mostly for reinforcing your own beliefs, rather than finding new ones, unless it's around a very mild topic.
I despise these people as much as any other decent human being should, but unfortunately, they're everywhere. Just not so much here.
They're here, too. Just quiet about their beliefs so they can talk about their passions. I'm mixed on this because we're giving a subset of bad people a safe space to talk about their not-bad parts, which is adjacent to giving them a pass. I don't know how to reconcile this because I'm also not the thought police.
In some ways, I wish everyone wore the basic foundations of their heart on their sleeve so I could at least filter out the evil from my life more readily and try to make space for some people with bad ideas, but a willingness to change.
He looked at me and smiled. Went back to his coding.
I just want to put it out there that just because you happen to be in a place with a lot of unsavory people doesn't mean you, yourself are unsavory. We shouldn't paint everyone with so Catholic a brush. You have to go to the grocery store, but so do pedophiles, drug lords, and wife abusers. That's kind of how I see HN.
Yes. It's a crap hole.
But some neighborhoods just have crap hole grocery stores. Tech is kind of one of those "neighborhoods", and HN is a grocery store. You don't have to socialize with the other customers, and you can restrict yourself to only buying the decent foods on offer.
To the point someone brought up elsewhere, you can't really 'fight' back either. Everything remains 'polite' despite viewing you as less of a human being for being a person of color, poor, etc.
I'm convinced the only reason crimeflare continues to platform them is that it must be some kind of three letter honeypot.
But, they now allow NSFW content in regular boards like technology, and for the first time in 20 years I actually saw someone post cheese pizza... plus I regularly see more and more leaked data posted there first, so I wouldn't call it less lawless at all.
Don't know what this means, gonna keep it that way.
They explicitly say they proactively work with LEOs to report any and all things illegal. I wouldn't be surprised if they had members of staff directly employed by some agencies, they wouldn't be opposed to it. They do not wait for a court order or subpoena, they will happily give them data and will not wait to be asked.
Their range of acceptable content is wider than other cleaner platforms which gives an impression of anarchy and freedom and anonymity, but actually those other more censored and speech restricted platforms may actually be more safer, private and free from government and legal interference!
I used the word 'degrade' earlier and I'm not sure fighting to the death over rascal is a higher state of enlightenment, but I do think words should have meaning, and now they mostly no longer do because everything is always hyperbolized to the most ridiculous degree.
So if the FBI was doing something akin in modern times they'd probably weaponize their knowledge by framing him as a viable rapist or other sort of sexual predator as opposed to a simple womanizer.
Good thing the FBI doesn't do this anymore hahaha yes we are certainly safe and they are definitely not infiltrating groups and people's minds in order to discredit and trick them into failure.....
How were his orgies any different in moral character than the orgies the effective altruists throw?
His wife stood by him as wives were often expected to do back in the day, but that doesn't mean she was a willing participant in a nonmonogamous relationship.
yes. he was a baptist minister. monogamy in marriage is a fundamental principle of the baptist faith.
To be fair, it's also true that we need more people like him and fewer people like the ones on the other side.
And that's not to detract from how gross it is that government abused it's power to attempt to get someone to commit suicide. Reminds me of Aaron Swartz case too.
He was brave and an incredible orator. But not exactly a paragon of virtue, someone who can lead by example, which we really need at the highest rungs of power.
If you just meant very high percentile, then yes I agree. :)
"The most damaging memos describe King witnessing a rape in a hotel room. Instead of stopping it, handwritten notes in the file say he encouraged the attacker to continue."
1 - https://theconversation.com/im-an-mlk-scholar-and-ill-never-...
so weird that it somehow got through the spam filter
In some aspects, times have changed..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterterrorism
"Kill Yourself" is very similar in verse to "You Are Done."
I can imagine him sitting around with his buddies, taking turns reading it out loud, barely able to make it through a sentence without cracking up laughing until everybody was crying.
Apparently the audio tapes get released in 2027 so we may find out for sure then.
His close advisors included major organizers of the Communist Party. And this was at the height of the Cold War. The steelman argument for the FBI's decision is that it faced an extraordinary threat to national security in the person of MLK and resorted to extraordinary measures to try to neutralize that threat. And as far as the FBI went there were certainly lines that the FBI wouldn't cross.
There are also, of course, very strong arguments against the FBI's covert action against King, and those are well-known.
I agree; racial equality was a new idea for the USA. Really weird. Totally against the status quo.
> He presented himself as a holy man while participating in rape.
He presented himself as a reverend and also a civil rights leader. He was both. You make it sound like he wanted us to worship him. Nothing like that.
As just as King's cause was in many respects, using powerful national movements to essentially cripple localities to force them to bend to the mass-movement's will held enormous destructive potential, especially with King's ties to the Communist party.
A reverend is a holy man. Being one is entirely inconsistent with how King led his life.
MLK Jr watched a woman get raped, and encouraged the rapists while they were doing it.
"By bugging the room, they were able to listen in on King and at least 11 others participated in what the FBI memos describe as “an orgy” on Jan. 6, 1964.
The microphones also picked up activities from the night before, when Kearse, who died in 1991, allegedly sexually assaulted one of his parishioners. According to the memos, King was in the room. The handwritten note indicates that King didn’t just observe the assault – he laughed.
Worse, instead of trying to stop the incident, the memos say King apparently offered advice to the perpetrator, encouraging the abuse."
But sites won't let me do that, they want me to make an account first and they want to verify my email address and phone number which means leaving my browser and restarting the process each time I do because the browser got unloaded and the website doesn't save state. Almost all of the friction here is the fault of the website, not the payment process.
Usually I just can't make an account on a mobile device because of the browser unloading, so if it's important I do it later with my PC and if it's not important I give up entirely.
Youtube Premium is a pretty good system. I pay $16/mo, and 55% of that gets distributed to creators based on my watch time.
I'm not sure if there's an actual website that did it? I've made micropayments for other things like PAYG phones and speculating on crypto.
it doesn't paywall for me
But you won't find Levison's name on the SCLC Wikipedia page even though his personal wiki page mentions he was "instrumental in founding" it.
>>> The current F.B.I. director, James Comey, keeps a copy of the King wiretap request on his desk as a reminder of the bureau’s capacity to do wrong.