Posts by lysistrata

CW and Runey are right.  I did not have the purest of motives in posting here.  There was more reactivity in what I said than I am happy to admit.  Everybody processes **** like this in their own way and everybody needs to feel free to do so without being disrespected.  I am sorry I made that harder.

Original Post by hatamoto:

Original Post by kathygator:

@ Hata's quote:

That don't make no sense. What about books? Movies? Their parents telling them how it used to be?

He was making a comment about the fragility of "revealed wisdom" compared to knowledge built based on empirical observation. The laws nature runs on are true (and to the best of our measurement, consistent) whether or not we know about them, revelation disappears the moment we stop thinking about it or when the last adherent dies.

I think that's funny, since the "revealed wisdom" of Jesus and Gautama and Mohammed have subsisted for thousands of years while empirical science has veered from geocentrism and materialism to big bangs and quantum theory.

So, what's the eternal consistent truth behind Planck's Wall?

Original Post by catwalker:

Accuracy is important.

No one in the original thread called the people of Boston racists.

No one in the original thread called the survivors racists.

Original Post by catwalker:

What was suspicious about him was that he was of middle eastern descent. And maybe you should follow your own advice and not assume the bystanders were entirely innocent.

I do understand that because of 9/11 that people of middle eastern descent will be scrutinized more closely, especially during an attack of any kind. We all have to try to fight the urge to stereotype and act on our initial fears.

 

ETA: They may not be out and out racists, but they did respond to racism with this episode. They also responded out of fear and they have been exposed to reasons why people of middle eastern descent could be a real threat.

Original Post by theviewfromhere:

absolutely. it's understandable that in a crisis like this, people would look to an "other" to blame. the alternative is too frightening. to not acknowledge that is just to propagate denial, and that is racist.

Original Post by catwalker:

Exactly what I was trying to get at. It is necessary to discuss and admit why the bystanders tackled and restrained the guy.

Original Post by theviewfromhere:

and again, to deny that people who can be easily othered because of their skin colour are often targeted during crises (poverty, war, terrorist attack, etc.) is racist. we don't need somebody to step up and say, "i took him out because he was brown" to recognize that.

Original Post by theviewfromhere:

somebody was targeted. whether he was targeted because he was "suspicious" or because he was brown may never be known, but to deny that it was a brown guy targeted after a bombing in a predominantly-white crowd, to pretend that's not significant, is a problem.

Original Post by cakeysaurus:

Yep. Timothy McVeigh was a white male... I don't see them grabbing every white male in the area. It's racism (or racial profiling?)... to deny it is just silly.

Original Post by hatamoto:

Agree with this, but in the days after people regain their composure, there'd be value in examining the inherent racist overtones of "brown = terrorist" that people have been fed for the last decade+.

I can't really blame people who immediately jump to that conclusion when they've been saturated with media telling them that message. It'd be generally good to make people aware that narrative isn't saying the whole story, imo.

Maybe some small benefit can be built from the ashes of this tragedy.

Original Post by theviewfromhere:

my guess would be that, objectively, just about anybody under those circumstances could be perceived to be acting suspiciously, since the vast majority of us have no template for "normal" post-bombing behaviour. makes me wonder how many "suspicious" white guys walked away unmolested while the one brown guy was being detained.

Original Post by hatamoto:

The premise of a lot of military drilling is the idea that when exposed to an acute mental trauma (eg. nearby explosions, bullets flying, someone dying next to you et al) the most likely result will be to revert to your training.

Or in the case of the general population, when the bombs start going off, to look for brown people... as that's what they've been trained to do de facto by media.

... which is why it's important to have a serious conversation that includes a the possibility of people who "look just like you" included as suspects when things like this go down, and not depend on a clearly visible other to point a finger at reflexively.

Original Post by runesplendor:

Original Post by lysistrata:

Please forgive me if this also seems harsh, but what makes you comfortable is about the least important thing in the middle of reacting to a crisis.

Neither is anyone else's except Jules, then, if that's the case.

It's important TO ME.  Same as you and everyone else.

Yes, you're right.  Our feelings are deeply important to ourselves.  But our needs are not important right now, compared to the needs of the people suffering.  I am suggesting that turning this into a racial discussion is likely to be deeply upsetting to the people who went through it, and is certainly upsetting to Jules who told us it was upsetting.  So I am suggesting that we should put our feelings aside for now.

Original Post by runesplendor:

Wow.  That's a little harsh, Lys.

If that's the case, how come not one single other person we've heard was acting suspicious?  No one else in the whole vicinity warranted being held?  One single person in all those thousands?  It's too altruistic to afford such lofty motives to a single episode.  

If that was the case, all the would-be heros would have nabbed anyone not-quite-right and the police (and media) would have been saturated with potential suspects.  But the cops haven't felt the need to search any other apartments?  Question anyone else?  And the media hasn't picked up on any of this?  Even the arrest reports sound like they've been greatly exaggerated.  And I doubt it's because they plugged the leaks so quickly.

Maybe it is harsh.  I'm not feeling all that charitable about people accusing the survivors of being racists.

I think the guy probably was acting bizarrely, which is why he got singled out and not any of the other brown people in the crowd.  But in reality, we don't know what anybody was thinking; everything is conjecture, and the facts are cherry-picked for reporting.  The difference is between giving people in shock the benefit of the doubt versus assuming the worst about them.

Some people just want to believe everybody is awful.  I guess it's a validation thing.

Original Post by agana:

How is religion helping poor kids in the congo and south america?  Are they not poor and starving any more because they believe in god?

How is wealth and materialism and abundance making people blissfully happy?

Original Post by mercurystar:

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by mercurystar:

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by mercurystar:

It's not that farfetched a "conspiracy" - it's pretty clear that organized religion (ALL organized religion, I'm not picking on Christianity here) is a means of social control used by a privileged few to dictate the lives of a great many. You don't even have to look at its origins to assume that, only its present.

Yeah!  Take that, controlling authoritarian buddhists and your hundreds of millions of followers.

Okay, so "ALL" was an overstatement. Can we downgrade it to "most"? :)

I think if we downgrade it to Islamo-Judeo-Christian religions, I'm satisfied.  :)

(So I don't have to also bring up the 900 million Hindus.)

On behalf of the few hundred thousand Unitarian Universalists, I object.

Okay fine, I'm picking on Christianity! LOL. No but for real, I'm totally not talking about UU - their system is so broad they are BARELY organized religion to begin with. =P The Islamo-Judeo-Christian people who practice Universal Unitarianism are NOT the vast majority of any of those faiths (unfortunately...), and I'm not talking about the adherants anyway, I'm talking about the organized religions themselves. The people believe what they believe, people are drawn to religions which resonate with them - it's not their fault that their larger organizations are corrupt. I mean, we could get into the difference between the Church of Christ and the United Church of Christ, too (WOW is that a difference in political spectrum), but I don't want to get bogged down in details. I'm really only trying to make the point that at their inception, quite a few religions were created (or co-opted) as a means of social control.

See, I have no problem agreeing that religions perform an organizing function in society.  Part of the point is to coordinate the values, beliefs and behaviors of adherents.  Religions across the world accomplish that with varying degrees of authoritarian structure, and they participate to varying degrees in global power exchanges other than religious ones.

Where I disagree with you is in your interpretation of the organizing function of religion as a cause of religion in general.  I don't doubt that such tactics are true in some instances ... what springs to my mind is Scientology.  But to have priests, you have to have a believing flock that supports them and accepts their authority.  And the reasons people come to believe, often in spite of the authoritarian structures you criticize, are many and varied.

ETA:  I see you edited your post before I responded and I think we are actually on pretty close to the same page.

I find the "Never let a good crisis go to waste" mentality sickening.  Let people grieve.  Effing asshats.

Original Post by mercurystar:

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by mercurystar:

Original Post by gotborked:

Original Post by agana:

Or some people started a weird messiah cult, not unlike the ones today.  Some very smart people saw the potential for control and power and ran with it.  What a great foundation.

Well, I guess you're entitled to come up with and believe that sort of conspiracy to explain the motivations of those who founded the Church.  I just wanted to clear up the implication that there was no historical basis for its founding. 

It's not that farfetched a "conspiracy" - it's pretty clear that organized religion (ALL organized religion, I'm not picking on Christianity here) is a means of social control used by a privileged few to dictate the lives of a great many. You don't even have to look at its origins to assume that, only its present.

Yeah!  Take that, controlling authoritarian buddhists and your hundreds of millions of followers.

Okay, so "ALL" was an overstatement. Can we downgrade it to "most"? :)

I think if we downgrade it to Islamo-Judeo-Christian religions, I'm satisfied.  :)

(So I don't have to also bring up the 900 million Hindus.)

The gentleman in the cowboy hat photographed pinching the femoral artery of the young man who had both legs blown off was identified as Carlos Arredondo, a Cuban immigrant who lost a son in Iraq.  He doesn't want to be called a hero.  I think it's probably not going to matter what he wants.  What an inspiration.