Romanoffia for Justice

[Romanoffia]

Obligatory campaign speech:

Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla, Yada yada yada yada and so forth.

Yup, it's that time again for all those wonderful campaign promises that all the candidates make just to get elected and re-elected in perpetuity. All those promises that are made when in fact it is full known that all those promises for change or reform are virtually impossible to keep. Promises that candidates make knowing full well that there is no intention of keeping those promises or actually engaging in any meaningful reform.

Well, I can't promise any change or reform because, frankly, if you actually try to reform anything you will generally get stomped on for your efforts. The only thing that I can do is tell you exactly what I will and will not do as a Justice.

I will render my decisions based upon the facts, legal code and constitutional bases; I will not consider political pressure or public opinion in rendering those decisions. I will, however, consider what is and is not Justice in rendering decisions. It has been said that the law is an ass, and it is. Take that assessment anyway you want. My judgements will largely consider the merits of the individual case even if it sets new precedents - just because something is precedent does not mean that it should be blindly obeyed. Bad precedents are bad precedents and often are used as a way to 'scotch' decisions and then blame the results on 'precedent'.

My ethics and morality are not for sale nor or they subject to any pressures to go against my morals and ethics.

That simple. Anything else would be simply blind worship of the status quo.

 

[Tomb]

Good luck, Roman.

~ Tomb

 

[r3naissanc3r]

Tell us your thoughts about your last term as Justice.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

No, please don't.

 

[Romanoffia]

Tell us your thoughts about your last term as Justice.

Don't mid if I do.

I think that forum moderation didn't do enough to control the troll population when I request it to do so, and when I did act to control the troll population in the Courtroom section of the forum, I was summarily subjected to a political lynching. You know that, you took part in the festivities.

Any more questions?

 

[SillyString]

Why do you believe it is in any way appropriate to compare a few people wanting to recall you from office to a wide-spread, violent, hateful campaign of death against an entire racial group?

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Romanoffia, I think you were a decent Justice for most of your terms in the position. To put it mildly, the last term of office you held in the Justice seat was an absolute clusterfuck. I can't support you in your reelection bid at this time, I think you need more time out of the seat and that people need to be sure that you won't react in a similar manner again if you are elected.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

Don't mid if I do.

I think that forum moderation didn't do enough to control the troll population when I request it to do so, and when I did act to control the troll population in the Courtroom section of the forum, I was summarily subjected to a political lynching. You know that, you took part in the festivities.

Any more questions?

This kind of response tells me that you remain completely unfit to serve as Justice. Nobody should vote for you.

 

[Romanoffia]

Why do you believe it is in any way appropriate to compare a few people wanting to recall you from office to a wide-spread, violent, hateful campaign of death against an entire racial group?

What a strawman argument. In fact, I would say that your statement proves that some people are quite ready to get all dictatorial when anyone doesn't bend to the will of the Oligarchy.

Romanoffia, I think you were a decent Justice for most of your terms in the position. To put it mildly, the last term of office you held in the Justice seat was an absolute clusterfuck. I can't support you in your reelection bid at this time, I think you need more time out of the seat and that people need to be sure that you won't react in a similar manner again if you are elected.

Well, if forum moderation and the Oligarchy chose to assist me in dealing with known trolls who did nothing but entirely disrupt the Court instead of openly assisting the trolls, there would have been no clusterfuck. I used the ability of the Chief Justice to create rules where no rules existed, and quite legitimate rules, and I got savaged for exercising my authority.

I will tell you what the clusterfuck really is. The whole system is a clusterfuck in which the main means to advancement is to fall in with the Oligarchy party line or be subject to all manner of abuse. There is a complete lack of understanding of proper legal procedure in terms of logic, reason and justice. In fact, there is an entire lack of understanding of anything resembling a proper, logical and rational legal system. And when ever anyone attempts to actually accomplish the delivery of Justice, they will get mangled for it.

And I am going to stop there because I really don't want to fly loose and offend anyone with the depth of my disgust and frustration involving how a distinct minority of people prefer mob rule over the rule of law, so I will leave it at that.

Don't mid if I do.

I think that forum moderation didn't do enough to control the troll population when I request it to do so, and when I did act to control the troll population in the Courtroom section of the forum, I was summarily subjected to a political lynching. You know that, you took part in the festivities.

Any more questions?

This kind of response tells me that you remain completely unfit to serve as Justice. Nobody should vote for you.

Yeah? Look at the preceding posts that I just quoted here. It's a target smear campaign and your post illustrates that beyond all doubt. You only object to this response because you and everyone else know that I am spot-on.

Since some of you have apparently chosen to take my candidacy as an opportunity to get nasty about things, I will take this opportunity to illustrate exactly what is wrong with your opinion in this matter. In fact, it is something that is wrong about the entire region.


In The North Pacific, there is one governing faction that has been monopolising this region for a long time. It is what is called an Oligarchy. It's a small club and the rest of the people aren't in it. You can be in this region for 12 years but if you aren't in the elite little group that has it all locked up, you have no opportunity except to be a good little follower of the party line.

No one, and I mean no one, goes anywhere unless they tow the Oligarchy party line or have been carefully selected to be admitted to the tight little club. Elitism, in which a select group of people decide what is good for the everyone else is something that I find very distasteful. Most people find it distasteful but know if they speak out against such attitudes, they will be in the end of a long train of abuse heading straight at them.

What I find utterly offensive and destructive is that certain people feel that they can dictate to people who gets elected to an office or not. The sad part is that under most instances, most people will simply vote the way they are told to vote because they are afraid of being marked and excluded from opportunity in this region. This results in the expectation that Court Justices make their decisions in accordance with the Oligarchy or face recall.

I'm sure that anyone who gets elected to an office who doesn't sufficiently toe the party line of the actual ruling elite will be recalled after sufficient mud has been flung against the target.

Frankly, I'd like to see (with a few exceptions) entirely new faces hold every elected office in this region instead of people who have the Oligarchy Stamp of Approval.

Now would you like to know what I really think?

 

[falapatorius]

In The North Pacific, there is one governing faction that has been monopolising this region for a long time. It is what is called an Oligarchy.

You can call it an Oligarchy if you like, but I see it as a corrupt cesspool of cronyism. There are a few of them that flirt with actual democracy, but still toe the party line when pressured.

What I find interesting is that many of the people that hold positions of power here also hold significant positions in other regions. Regions that don't necessarily have TNP's interests in mind. GCRs are always the ripest plums to pick.

I say let them stoop to the level they have. Petty and undemocratic.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

In The North Pacific, there is one governing faction that has been monopolising this region for a long time. It is what is called an Oligarchy.

You can call it an Oligarchy if you like, but I see it as a corrupt cesspool of cronyism. There are a few of them that flirt with actual democracy, but still toe the party line when pressured.

Like who? Just curious.

What I find interesting is that many of the people that hold positions of power here also hold significant positions in other regions. Regions that don't necessarily have TNP's interests in mind. GCRs are always the ripest plums to pick.

In most of my time here, I've been pretty vigilant about foreign influence. I think we're in a much stronger place now in terms of native-WA's involved primarily in our region/forum than we were two years ago, but it always needs to be constantly improved upon. Who do you think holds significant positions in other regions that don't necessarily have TNP's interests in mind? Do you think those people are unable to separate those interests and have demonstrated that they put the interests of the foreign power first?

I say let them stoop to the level they have. Petty and undemocratic.

What has occured in this election that is undemocratic? Even if you class the comments in this thread as negative campaigning, that is part of the electoral process. If people can't criticise the merits of a candidate then democracy is truly dead.


Romanoffia - You know that I like you. I honestly think you running for this position again would be bad for you. Putting aside everything else, you were almost ready to leave TNP & I do not wish to see it getting to that stage again.

 

[falapatorius]

Like who? Just curious.

Don't worry, you've earned my respect. It doesn't matter if it's reciprocal.

Do you think those people are unable to separate those interests and have demonstrated that they put the interests of the foreign power first?

I don't know. But it's not something I'd ignore.

If people can't criticise the merits of a candidate then democracy is truly dead.

That's a given. But encouraging people to vote a specific way (for whatever reason) is just wrong. We've had this discussion MANY times. This goes beyond that. Why would anyone not run because of who they might have to work with? There is at least one candidate (maybe two), that I'd rather not talk to at all. I would never suggest flummoxing the election just to avoid that. I'd deal with it.

 

[Romanoffia]

Frankly, I'm disgusted with these personal attacks. It's ugly politics conducted by people of questionable integrity and morality.

What makes it even worse is that it is the same people targeting a couple of other people in the same way in other campaign threads. Sounds like a coordinated effort to smear candidates. And this is not the first election in which this despicable tactic has been used.

In my personal opinion (and since certain people's opinions are sacrosanct, my should also be so), people who have to resort to smear tactics in order to make sure that only certain people will ever get elected to an office are like idiots: one should never argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and win every time.

What makes it really obscene is that people who run smear campaigns have such contempt for people around here to think people are so stupid that they will fall for garbage like smear campaigns which target specific individuals.

What we need in this region is an electoral house-cleaning and put some new faces in office who are not in the perennial and perpetual ruling elite.

And that's just my personal opinion which I hope is still permitted around here.

 

[falapatorius]

And that's just my personal opinion which I hope is still permitted around here.

I'm ok with it.

 

[Romanoffia]

And that's just my personal opinion which I hope is still permitted around here.

I'm ok with it.

But the Oligarchy isn't, which they have made abundantly clear.

But seriously, as a Justice, I would refuse to hear any silly or inane case brought before the Court. I mean, who the hell cares if Skippy's Mum and Skippy got turned into Roo-B-Q. Ironically, as an AAG, I would have loved to have seen such an inane case be sent to the Court and watch the Court look like a bunch of fools for refusing to hear it (or, worse yet, look like a bunch of fools for hearing it).

Either way, non-Oligarchy Approved Candidates don't stand a chance in this 'Election'. And that's the way it will always be unless people break the chains of oppression and vote for non-Oligarchy Approved Candidates.

 

[SillyString]

Why do you believe it is in any way appropriate to compare a few people wanting to recall you from office to a wide-spread, violent, hateful campaign of death against an entire racial group?

What a strawman argument.

I would point out that I did not make an argument, I asked a question, but I'm feeling less pedantic than usual tonight.

Did you not say,

I was summarily subjected to a political lynching.

?

I do not believe you can be ignorant of the history of lynching as a tool of racial aggression, so are you perhaps unaware that the spectre of lynch mobs continues to be used to instill fear in racial minorities? That to this day, there are individuals and families who have found nooses placed on a doorstep or in a mailbox, among other not-terribly-veiled threats?

In my opinion, it is highly inappropriate to compare criticism of your actions, and even criticism of you personally, to targeted, hateful racial violence. Your privilege is showing; you may want to check it.

 

[Romanoffia]

Why do you believe it is in any way appropriate to compare a few people wanting to recall you from office to a wide-spread, violent, hateful campaign of death against an entire racial group?

What a strawman argument.

I would point out that I did not make an argument, I asked a question, but I'm feeling less pedantic than usual tonight.

Did you not say,

I was summarily subjected to a political lynching.

?

I do not believe you can be ignorant of the history of lynching as a tool of racial aggression, so are you perhaps unaware that the spectre of lynch mobs continues to be used to instill fear in racial minorities? That to this day, there are individuals and families who have found nooses placed on a doorstep or in a mailbox, among other not-terribly-veiled threats?

In my opinion, it is highly inappropriate to compare criticism of your actions, and even criticism of you personally, to targeted, hateful racial violence. Your privilege is showing; you may want to check it.

Don't you EVER dare play the RL 'Race Card' with me, pal. Accusing me of being a racist is patently offensive.

You are effectively accusing me as being 'racist' which I take as personally offensive as it is entirely untrue.

You are also engaging in quite a fascist form of Political Correctness by essentially demanding certain legitimate legal terms not be used. You are acting like the character in George Orwell's book '1984' who says, "the destruction of words is a beautiful thing!".

I am patently offended by your implications and I suggest you not make accusations of racism against me. You should know better than to sink to such and offensively disgusting and low level of intellectual fraud.

How dare you.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

No, Roman, that's not what she said. As I understand the "Political lynching" remark, the recall supporters would be the racists, not you.

 

[Romanoffia]

No, Roman, that's not what she said. As I understand the "Political lynching" remark, the recall supporters would be the racists, not you.

No, I know when I have been accused of being a racist and this is it.

She made a comment concerning 'privilege'. Her clear intent and clearly made statement presumes that I am a racist by that word alone.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. You do not make a statement like this to anyone in my part of the country and get away with it.

"In my opinion, it is highly inappropriate to compare criticism of your actions, and even criticism of you personally, to targeted, hateful racial violence. Your privilege is showing; you may want to check it"

She is clearly making the accusation of racism in a way that is not only insensitive and offensive, but bordering on 'fighting words'. I don't give a hoot who she put it, the statement is clear that she is tagging me as a racist and it is clearly displayed by her 'privilege' comment, which, in and of itself is also racist as she is promoting an unwarranted stereotype in describing me.

She is pulling not only the race card, but compounding it by the clear implication of "White Privilege" and applying the White Southerner Racist stereotype to me.

No, I know when I am being accused of being a racist and I don't like it and I will not tolerate such an offensive thing.

How dare she. How, $*%(#)_ dare she.

 

[Romanoffia]

Now that the trollery has been stemmed and my campaign thread un-hijacked by perpetrators of asshattery and rude accusations...


I want everyone who feels as though they are being short changed by the Oligarchical System that pervades this region to stand up, vote for non-Oligarchy Approved Candidates and take the region back for the People!

 

[SillyString]

She made a comment concerning 'privilege'. Her clear intent and clearly made statement presumes that I am a racist by that word alone.

The following post is adapted from something I wrote at GBM's request, which members of the admin team have encouraged me to post publicly. The confusion of privilege with racism is an unfortunate but common mistake - they are quite different things. So I'm happy to have a chance to clarify.

I have been looking for a good introductory explanation of privilege. None of the ones I have found are quite sufficient, though I think this one is the best one of them - note however that it's primarily angled toward gender rather than race. The principle is the same, though.

Privilege is institutional, it is not individual. All white people possess white privilege, whatever other advantages or disadvantages they may have. All people of color do not possess white privilege, whatever other advantages or disadvantages they may have Privilege does not offset oppression - a white woman is not "equal" to a black man, but rather, they both have some elements of privilege and some elements of oppression, and their lives are made easier and harder in different ways because of that (this is, for the unaware, called "intersectionality").

As a white person in your particular circumstances, Roman, you have certain advantages over a non-white person in those same circumstances. Some of those advantages are detailed in this seminal article, which I encourage people to read.

A particularly relevant one in this case is:

32. My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races.

As a white person, you have never faced the threat of lynching. You have never, either consciously or subconsciously, had that as a possible threat to your life. You have never lived in personal fear of its return. When you hear about racially motivated violence or read about past events, you have the luxury of responding with "Oh, how awful for them," and not "What if that were me?" You have the profound luxury of not having to think about the racial implications of your speech.

None of this makes you a bad person. None of it makes you racist. None of it is your fault. That's the thing about privilege - we either have it or we don't because of nothing we have done, but simply because of a fact about us.

Having privilege is not the same as having an easy life, by any means! Admitting to privilege does not mean admitting to having done anything wrong. It is simply acknowledging the institutional structures which advantage you and disadvantage others because of something like race, gender, sexual orientation, age, physical ability, or wealth.

To provide a tangible example, consider a job interview.

Men have the privilege of being able to wear practically any suit without worrying about whether it will cause their interviewer to dismiss their credibility for being either "too hot" or "not hot enough".

White folks have the privilege of knowing that they will probably (though by no means definitely) be interviewed by someone of their race, and that if their interviewer does have a racial bias, it will most likely be in their favor.

Able-bodied people have the privilege of not needing to risk biasing their interviewer against them by asking for accommodations during the interview and/or while working, nor worrying about how to access an interview location.

Straight people have the privilege of being able to make small talk with an interviewer without any kind of concern that if their love life comes up ("So are you married/have any kids?") they may face prejudice for the sex or gender of their chosen partner.

Younger people have the privilege of being considered as viable career hires, rather than looked at like they already have one foot in retirement.

The examples go on! But the key thing here is that regardless of the circumstance, none of this is any of it any kind of guarantee of being offered the job. They are all structures that systematically advantage certain groups of people over others in an unearned manner, but they aren't "foolproof". More than that, though, no conclusion is either drawn or implied that the applicant shouldn't take the job if offered. It is, however, better for them to be aware of how the system was rigged both for and against them.

I am also white. I also have privilege because of that. It's not something I want, but it's impossible to avoid. Even if I don't want advantages in life solely because of the color of my skin, I have them anyway. Because of this, it is important that I use the privilege that I do have in order to dismantle this system - for example, to call out privilege and racism when it occurs, because I am taken more seriously than someone of color. To use the luxury I have of not being personally affected, of being able to walk away at any point and never experience a visceral fear or anger, in order to engage on this matter, even though I don't have to and would face no backlash for avoiding it. Because I am white, I can do this. And I do, so that others don't have to fight this particular battle.

Roman, your privilege - as someone who is white, and not as someone who has purposefully done anything wrong - allows you to use terms like "lynching" in reference to a minor kerfuffle as though they are racially neutral. It allows you to be oblivious to the effects these words can have on racial minorities, and to likely face no consequences for their use. Even good people make mistakes, particularly in areas we have never been properly trained to see. We do better by catching our mistakes (or having them caught for us) and avoiding them next time.

Having privilege is like bringing bags onto a crowded airplane. We try to keep our carry-on items as small as possible, and check the rest, so that we don't inadvertently hit other people in the face with our belongings.

I hope that this helps clarify things somewhat.

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

It is not my thread, but I was reading and had to stop at:

Privilege is institutional, it is not individual. All white people possess white privilege, whatever other advantages or disadvantages they may have. All people of color do not possess white privilege, whatever other advantages or disadvantages they may have Privilege does not offset oppression - a white woman is not "equal" to a black man, but rather, they both have some elements of privilege and some elements of oppression, and their lives are made easier and harder in different ways because of that (this is, for the unaware, called "intersectionality").

As a white person in your particular circumstances, Roman, you have certain advantages over a non-white person in those same circumstances. Some of those advantages are detailed in this seminal article, which I encourage people to read.

I need to read the rest of your comments, and I certainly am not wanting to start an argument, but I find the idea of "check your privledge" a problem in of itself, to assume other people have a certain right just because they happen to be born a certain way. I feel it is a bit more complex than that and the idea of "check your privledge" is a way for people to be dismissive rather than to have an open two way dialog. In history people have treated people pretty crappy to put it lightly, I have only been around 20 something years, I have not interacted with everyone, and certianly cannot speak for any other person, but in my experiences I feel I am no better off than any other person, I struggle the same as anyone. Dr. King said "have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." I am sure Dr. King meant that everyone would be judged by the content of thier character, even white people.

When mulling over if I should comment or not if it were my place or not, I did a little google search, and found this article:

http://libertywithoutapologies.com/the-problem-with-check-your-privilege/

I think it is worth the read.

Now I will refrain from posting, even though this is a public thread, the intention was to have a conversation with Romanoffia and not the peanut gallery. Though I think open and honest two way communication by all parties is a good way to get past each of our differences and perceptions of one another and to understand each others experiences.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

I'll bypass the privilege debate.

You can buy the wild conspiracy theories Roman and a few others make up in an effort to disguise themselves as martyrs deserving your sympathy and vote.

Or, you can be sensible and do the following: 1) take a look at Roman's record last time he was Justice, with the blatant misconduct and the ridicule he brought to the office; 2) notice that not only does Roman not denounce his behavior back then, but also defends it and repeats it once more now; and 3) decide not to vote for him.

It should be an easy choice.

 

[Romanoffia]

She made a comment concerning 'privilege'. Her clear intent and clearly made statement presumes that I am a racist by that word alone.

The following post is adapted from something I wrote at GBM's request, which members of the admin team have encouraged me to post publicly. The confusion of privilege with racism is an unfortunate but common mistake - they are quite different things. So I'm happy to have a chance to clarify.

I have been looking for a good introductory explanation of privilege. None of the ones I have found are quite sufficient, though I think this one is the best one of them - note however that it's primarily angled toward gender rather than race. The principle is the same, though.

Privilege is institutional, it is not individual. All white people possess white privilege, whatever other advantages or disadvantages they may have. All people of color do not possess white privilege, whatever other advantages or disadvantages they may have Privilege does not offset oppression - a white woman is not "equal" to a black man, but rather, they both have some elements of privilege and some elements of oppression, and their lives are made easier and harder in different ways because of that (this is, for the unaware, called "intersectionality").

As a white person in your particular circumstances, Roman, you have certain advantages over a non-white person in those same circumstances. Some of those advantages are detailed in this seminal article, which I encourage people to read.

A particularly relevant one in this case is:

32. My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races.

As a white person, you have never faced the threat of lynching. You have never, either consciously or subconsciously, had that as a possible threat to your life. You have never lived in personal fear of its return. When you hear about racially motivated violence or read about past events, you have the luxury of responding with "Oh, how awful for them," and not "What if that were me?" You have the profound luxury of not having to think about the racial implications of your speech.

None of this makes you a bad person. None of it makes you racist. None of it is your fault. That's the thing about privilege - we either have it or we don't because of nothing we have done, but simply because of a fact about us.

Having privilege is not the same as having an easy life, by any means! Admitting to privilege does not mean admitting to having done anything wrong. It is simply acknowledging the institutional structures which advantage you and disadvantage others because of something like race, gender, sexual orientation, age, physical ability, or wealth.

To provide a tangible example, consider a job interview.

Men have the privilege of being able to wear practically any suit without worrying about whether it will cause their interviewer to dismiss their credibility for being either "too hot" or "not hot enough".

White folks have the privilege of knowing that they will probably (though by no means definitely) be interviewed by someone of their race, and that if their interviewer does have a racial bias, it will most likely be in their favor.

Able-bodied people have the privilege of not needing to risk biasing their interviewer against them by asking for accommodations during the interview and/or while working, nor worrying about how to access an interview location.

Straight people have the privilege of being able to make small talk with an interviewer without any kind of concern that if their love life comes up ("So are you married/have any kids?") they may face prejudice for the sex or gender of their chosen partner.

Younger people have the privilege of being considered as viable career hires, rather than looked at like they already have one foot in retirement.

The examples go on! But the key thing here is that regardless of the circumstance, none of this is any of it any kind of guarantee of being offered the job. They are all structures that systematically advantage certain groups of people over others in an unearned manner, but they aren't "foolproof". More than that, though, no conclusion is either drawn or implied that the applicant shouldn't take the job if offered. It is, however, better for them to be aware of how the system was rigged both for and against them.

I am also white. I also have privilege because of that. It's not something I want, but it's impossible to avoid. Even if I don't want advantages in life solely because of the color of my skin, I have them anyway. Because of this, it is important that I use the privilege that I do have in order to dismantle this system - for example, to call out privilege and racism when it occurs, because I am taken more seriously than someone of color. To use the luxury I have of not being personally affected, of being able to walk away at any point and never experience a visceral fear or anger, in order to engage on this matter, even though I don't have to and would face no backlash for avoiding it. Because I am white, I can do this. And I do, so that others don't have to fight this particular battle.

Roman, your privilege - as someone who is white, and not as someone who has purposefully done anything wrong - allows you to use terms like "lynching" in reference to a minor kerfuffle as though they are racially neutral. It allows you to be oblivious to the effects these words can have on racial minorities, and to likely face no consequences for their use. Even good people make mistakes, particularly in areas we have never been properly trained to see. We do better by catching our mistakes (or having them caught for us) and avoiding them next time.

Having privilege is like bringing bags onto a crowded airplane. We try to keep our carry-on items as small as possible, and check the rest, so that we don't inadvertently hit other people in the face with our belongings.

I hope that this helps clarify things somewhat.

Wow, what do I say other than it compounds the motives you have for accusing me of racism.

Privilege is institutional, it is not individual. All white people possess white privilege, whatever other advantages or disadvantages they may have. All people of color do not possess white privilege, whatever other advantages or disadvantages they may have Privilege does not offset oppression - a white woman is not "equal" to a black man, but rather, they both have some elements of privilege and some elements of oppression, and their lives are made easier and harder in different ways because of that (this is, for the unaware, called "intersectionality").

That is just about the most bigoted thing I have every seen.

As a white person in your particular circumstances, Roman, you have certain advantages over a non-white person in those same circumstances.

Now that is blatantly offensive and I take offence. What do you know about my circumstances or anything else about me for that matter? I have certain advantages because I am presumably white? That is also a bigoted stereotype if there ever was one.

Now this is where I am going to hand your head to you:

As a white person, you have never faced the threat of lynching. You have never, either consciously or subconsciously, had that as a possible threat to your life. You have never lived in personal fear of its return. When you hear about racially motivated violence or read about past events, you have the luxury of responding with "Oh, how awful for them," and not "What if that were me?" You have the profound luxury of not having to think about the racial implications of your speech.

Oh, it clarifies things even more.

You are really asking for it, let me tell you.

Ever hear about a country that used to be called Rhodesia but became Zimbabwe in 1980? Let me tell you a little bit of personal history that will put the ignorance of your entire post in plain view.

Back in the late 80's I was in Zimbabwe on business. To make a long story short, I was shot three times with an AK47 and left for dead by a gunman who decided that he didn't like the colour of my skin. So, don't presume I don't know about what it's like to face any kind of threat.

Oh, I can go on about horrible things of which I was on the receiving end, from Grenada, East Germany (ever get the ever loving crap beat out of you by the VOPO or the KGB in a basement in East Berlin?), Serbia, the first and second Gulf Wars and in New York City when the Twin Towers came down because some A-holes decided that Americans should die simply because they were Americans.

And I could go on. So don't give me any of your whining about privilege and injustice because the stereotypes and attitudes you are promoting are entirely ignorant of reality. And your little post there shows exactly your entirely bogus and straw-man motives in levelling accusations of racism against me.

Until you have nearly died more times than you can count on both hands simply because you weren't the right colour, or from the right country or just because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time, then I suggest you pipe down and put a sock in it.

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

I also found a Matt walsh blog, but I digress..this is supposed to be Romans Justice campaign thread..if we want to debate the pros and cons of "check your privledge"...we should start a debate/discussiom thread in the RL forum.

 

[Romanoffia]

Properly, it would be the Accuse Roman of Being A Racist for No Rational Reason thread.

I hope SS, and everyone here actually takes the time to read my response to her incredibly disturbing and less than educated, presumptuous post.

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

The problems arise when people lump others into groups and assume and presume things about another based on their own life experiences and personal biases, I live in a small town in the midwest ate up by perscription pill abuse, they shut the pill mills down and now heroine is coming back, A&E did a freaking documentary on us, the DEA has my county listed as a High Traffic area, I work my tail off, I get my bills paid, the only luxery I have is a phone that I pay my part of the plan on and WIFI with what I work for, after Bills and food, I may have a little extra to go out to a dinner once a week and maybe buy a sweater because I wasnt prepared for the cold because it went from being unseasonably warm to 50s and raining in a few days. I work a Union Retail job, its nothing glamorus...I may make a few dollars over minimum wage, thats because it took me 5 years to get full time, while other people were basically given theirs..the managers liked them and kept calling them in...people I had senority over were given opportunities over me, I do my job sufficently bit im not a butt kiss or socialize with mangement and when Management violated our union agreement I got on their crap list by whistleblowing and filing grievances...ive had to claw myself up to get my full time...I do not feel any more "privledged" then anyone else...I know I wasnt told to "check my privledge"...but I find the whole idea of "privledge" absured...life sucks for everyone...we are born into our indivdual lives and given the hand that we are dealt...we either accept it...or fight like hell to better ourselves...I consider myself working poor...I get my bills paid have a little left over for a few extras here and there..and little else...there are people who have it better than me...and there are people who have it worse then me...but I see them as People as Humans...not groups of white purple green innies outties..but humans....were all in it together...I find it arrogant to just assume someone has a certian privledge without knowing their life story or background. I dont feel Ive had any passes because I have fair skin (though somehow ive been confused a time or two for having a hispanic background..I dont see how but okay...) and happen to have male genitalia...I get marked down for my appearance during evaluations the same as anyone else...ive been passed over for promotions and opportunities to advance by people with less senority then me...we do equal work..infact in some instances ive been handed extra work and duties then they have..and there has been no good reason I can see why I had been passed up so many times...I do not feel I am better or worse than anyone else because of my genetics....we are all indivduals on this planet together each day we face unqiue subjective situations....the idea of "privledge" is just another way to dehumanize us and pigeon hole us into little groups and to keep up seperate and fighting one another instead of coming together ad indivduals in our unique circumstances and finding common ground and our simularities and sharing in our humanity.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

I am a WASP and believe that many of the advantages I have had in my lifetime would not have been so if I were black (or another race) or a woman.

 

[Romanoffia]

I am a WASP and believe that many of the advantages I have had in my lifetime would not have been so if I were black (or another race) or a woman.

I don't buy into the reality of that perception. Sure, there are some jackasses out there who will discriminate against someone for any imaginable reason. But that type of attitude cannot be considered anything more than a sweeping generality unjustly applied to large groups of people according to race.

I do not buy into the concept of "White Privilege", or minority disadvantage. Remember, the smallest minority in the world is the individual.

I have a friend who was just elected to the US Senate from South Carolina. When he was growing up, he always heard the taunt, "you aren't black enough" from people of his own race. That taunt is racist in nature even coming from members of his own race.

I view the "white privilege" garbage exactly the same way. Some people feel guilt about the color of their skin and then employ the same old 'race card' crap and demand that everyone else feel their guilt, and if they don't feel guilt over their skin color, they get called racist for it.

It's like members of a racial or ethic group addressing each other using totally unacceptable epithets. Somehow they think it's OK because they happen to be of a particular race or ethnic group and therefore it is OK for them to call each other nasty, racist names. What they fail to see is that they are being the worst kind of racists: those who hate their own skin.

Nevertheless, I still contend, and quite rightly so, that Silly String's initial comment that has lead to all of this was highly inappropriate and nothing more than trying to affect RP matters by leveling what amounts to nothing more than an accusation of racism against me in RL. And then those attitudes she denies are only supported and substantiated in her response to by objections, especially when she clearly introduced the issue of race to down play the severity of her initial acts and comments in this thread.

It is a stunning display of how far some people are willing to go just to try to derail a role-play game event. It is not only offensive, but also entirely inappropriate, uncalled for, and utterly disgusting.

 

[plembobria]

You have my endorsement.

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

Dude, Roman you know Tim Scott? Hes the first black senator from the South since reconstruction, people should be happy for him, but because he happens to be a conservative, I have seen the racist tweets coming, and they have came by the supposed party of tolerance, so apparrantly miniority disadvantage and privledge only exists as long as that person is a democrat, if a person of color gets elected who runs on the conservative party then they get called an "uncle tom" - progressives are only tolerant as long as you are on their side. http://www.tpnn.com/2014/11/05/libe...r-reaction-to-wins-by-tim-scott-and-mia-love/

When so called progressives show their hypocracy it is really sickening.

We should be civil to all people regardless of genetics or politcs. Not just be civil to them as long as they are a certian party. I bet if Tim Scott was a Democrat the liberals would be singing his praises and not calling him racial epithets derived from a Harriet Breecher Stowe novel to diminish his accomplishments as some "White mans lap dog".

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

Roman, tell your friend Tim that he needs to "check his privledge" - http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/tim...s-how-he-handled-the-question/article/2555850

Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., explained during an appearance on MSNBC on Thursday that it is the Republican Party and its support for things being conducted at the local level, and not the Democratic Party, that has helped people like him rise from poverty and become successful.

His remarks came after MSNBC host Thomas Roberts asked: "You say you're concerned about kids that are growing up in the wrong zip code and, like yourself, had a tough start on the way out. But if we look at agencies that are following some of your voting records, they have concern. And the NAACP has given you an 'F' on their annual scorecard."

Scott responded to his grading with a laugh.

"Let's just ask ourselves, if we look back over the history when Congress was controlled by the Democrats for 40 consecutive years, if we look at the result of that control, what has happened in black America? We saw greater poverty," the South Carolina senator said.

"If I have an 'F' on the NAACP's scorecard, it's because I believe that progress has to be made and the government is not the answer for progress. I was a kid growing up in poverty. I had a mentor who was a Chick-fil-A operator … who taught me that the brilliance of the American economy happens through business ownership and entrepreneurial spirit," he added.

Scott explained that as government gets larger, poverty remains, meaning that the a bloated bureaucracy is clearly not the answer. The answer to address poverty, Scott said, is found in " a good education" and "a strong work ethic."

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Hey now, he said he had a friend who recently got elected US Senator from SC. He didn't say it was Tim Scott.

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

Im just pointing out the tweets and the MSNBC host who is giving Mr. Scott a hard time for being a black Republican, but maybe you're right, maybe they aren't Democrats themselves.

 

[Romanoffia]

Yup, Tim Scott it is. Brilliant man. Got appointed about two years ago by Nikki Haley to fill out a term of a senator who resigned and got elected to fill out two more years of the residual.

Tim Scott is the first Black Senator elected in the South (13 Confederate States, that is) since Reconstruction. You should have seen the nasty fliers the Democrat Party was passing out effectively calling him an "Uncle Tom", etc. Yup, those Democrats are so open minded when it comes to race and their target is a Black Republican.

 

[Flemingovia]

Perhaps Roman ought to be allowed to use this thread for the purpose it was intended for: to campaign to become a justice?

So... Is there any alleged crime you wish had come before the court, or which you feel the court wrongly dismissed?

 

[Romanoffia]

Perhaps Roman ought to be allowed to use this thread for the purpose it was intended for: to campaign to become a justice?

So... Is there any alleged crime you wish had come before the court, or which you feel the court wrongly dismissed?

It would be lovely if this tread returned to the purpose it was intended.

So... Is there any alleged crime you wish had come before the court, or which you feel the court wrongly dismissed?

Is there any alleged crime I wished had come before the court?

In all honesty, not really. I think recently we've had our share of frivolous cases presented to the AG's office that were fairly silly, although I appreciated the humour behind those complaints.


Were there any cases which you feel the court wrongly dismissed?

Absolutely. There is one in particular that I wished could have come to trial, that never will, and which should be got out of the way once and for all: TNP v. JAL.

I'm going to do something here that no one ever does around here - admit to making a mistake and take full responsibility for it.

I made the mistake to take the case up altogether and also made the mistake of dismissing it despite my opinion that that the case was so hot that it would be impossible to conduct a proper trial without all hell breaking loose, which it did. TNP v. JAL is a case that needs to be dealt with regardless of the outcome.

I chose to hear the case precisely to get it out of the way but I found that it was an impossibility for a number of reasons I won't go into. I don't think the current Court would have had the guts to finally adjudicate this matter, and that it will probably never be put to bed out of fear of the same results I obtained (mainly none). I did, however, have the guts to try to put an end to the case once and for all and failed utterly. I don't think anyone else would have tried to finalise TNP v. JAL for the obvious reasons.

The problem I had with dismissing that case was that I wanted to see a fair trial, but as it turned out, the environment for a fair trial was impossible and still is impossible under even the current Court Rules, especially the current court rules.

Cases like TNP v. JAL need to be adjudicated because to leave them in a constant state of limbo is just asking for a perpetual festering wound on the legal system. It needs to be put to rest once and for all, for better or worse. At least it was dismissed in a way that can be brought up for trial again.

What we really need in our legal code is a statute of limitations that specifies how long the AG's office has to prosecute a case, perhaps 3-6 months after which the case is removed from the docket and subject to being relegated to the status of 'double jeopardy' for all offences other than Treason. This would solve a lot of clutter issues involving cases in which no conviction is possible (as is generally the case in the current legal system).

I thank you for asking very relevant questions to bring this campaign thread back into line (and am fairly surprised that it came from you ).

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

In the RA I have reintroduced the idea of civil trials, SS the current Chief Justice has counter recomended rather then reintroduce a seperate civil court that we should just rewrite the Criminal code, I have tried to pick the RAs brain, as to if a sort of criminal code convention were to be held where we scrapped and rewrote from the ground up, who would support it.

Based on your experiences on the bench and as an Assistant AG, do you feel the current judical system needs scrapped and rewritten from the ground up?

 

[Romanoffia]

In the RA I have reintroduced the idea of civil trials, SS the current Chief Justice has counter recomended rather then reintroduce a seperate civil court that we should just rewrite the Criminal code, I have tried to pick the RAs brain, as to if a sort of criminal code convention were to be held where we scrapped and rewrote from the ground up, who would support it.

Based on your experiences on the bench and as an Assistant AG, do you feel the current judical system needs scrapped and rewritten from the ground up?

I wouldn't go as far as saying that the Court system needs to be scrapped as that would cause some very severe transitional problems as radical change generally results in (and generally ends up being self-defeating in the end). What I would say is that the Judicial System, as a whole, needs to be modernised.

As it is now, we have a fairly primitive and unsophisticated system that tends towards crudeness in it's execution of the Law. We have a number of distorted understandings (in terms of how the criminal code is written and terms defined) that are particularly irking. One of the most irking defects is the legal definition of "Conspiracy" which currently allows one person to be charged with Conspiracy when Conspiracy, by all logical definitions, requires two or more people (as I yesterday addressed in the RA).

One of the things that needs to be changed is that we need a standardised system of maximum penalties for specific offences. Another issue is that we need more specific penalties designed to correct wrong doing that encourages those convicted of crimes to remain part of The North Pacific instead of penalties that usually drive people away in anger and resentment.