Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Disgusting Berkeley Riots
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 105 of 275 (799603)
02-11-2017 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Faith
02-11-2017 5:22 PM


Re: The Soros Connection
read the paragraph just above the one that starts the quote I gave
That was about Berkeley, I'm certainly not ignorant that property damage has occurred, that's the topic of this thread. The cop in question was talking about protesters in New York. That's like 3,000 miles apart. But let's suppose the cop's intel was such that it definitely included other areas. Is this it? Some people caused damage. Soros might have paid some people. No connection that ties the people causing damage to Soros paying them? No suggestion that Soros was actually requesting damage be caused to property?
I don't think this reporter's 'revelation' is suggestive Soros is involved in any crime. Even if he funded some protesters or protests, given most protesters are peaceful - the probability that he was funding peaceful protests is higher than the probability he was funding violent protests.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 02-11-2017 5:22 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 106 of 275 (799604)
02-11-2017 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by jar
02-11-2017 5:22 PM


Re: The Soros Connection
We're talking about events over the last few months, jar. I think the Nazi collaborator angle is behind us - even Faith has stepped back from it somewhat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 02-11-2017 5:22 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 107 of 275 (799607)
02-11-2017 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Modulous
02-05-2017 11:28 AM


more legal response to violence at protests
Allen Scarsella, who was masked up, shot 5 black lives matter protesters at a protest in 2015, was recently found guilty.
Michael Strickland, a videographer for 'LaughingAtLiberals' was found guilty on "10 counts of unlawful use of a weapon, 10 counts of menacing and one count of second-degree disorderly conduct" after waving a loaded gun at a crowd of Black Lives Matter protesters. He was carrying over 100 bullets for his Glock semi-automatic handgun.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 02-05-2017 11:28 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 108 of 275 (800195)
02-20-2017 6:15 PM


Conservatives are now suppressing Milo's free speech?
Milo's comments
quote:
The law is probably about right, that's probably roughly the right age but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age. I certainly consider myself to be one of them. People are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way. In many cases, actually, those relationships with older - this is one of the reasons why I hate the left - with this stupid one size fits all policing of culture - this arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent which totally destroys the understanding many of us have of the complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. People are messy and complex; in the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men - the sort of 'coming of age' relationships - those relationships where those older men help those young boys discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable rock - where they can't speak to their parents. Some of those relationships are the most {interrupted by heckling about Catholic priests} - I'm grateful to father Michael I wouldn't give nearly as good head if it wasn't for him {interrupted by challenge}
You're misunderstanding what paedophilia means. Paedophilia is not a sexual attraction to someone, 13 years old, who is sexually mature. Paedophilia is the attraction to children who have not reached puberty...who don't have functioning sex organs yet who have not gone through puberty who are too young to understand the way their body functions. That is not what we're talking about. You don't know what paedophilia is if you think I'm defending it. {interruption}
I don't mind admitting that {I'm advocating cross-generational relationships}, particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church if that's where some of you want to go with this. I think in the gay world some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life-affirming and important shaping relationships are very often between younger boys and older men. They can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys. They can even save those young boys from desolation, from suicide - provided they are consensual.
Matt Schlapp, the head of the American Conservative Union:
quote:
We continue to believe that CPAC is a constructive forum for controversies and disagreements among conservatives, however there is no disagreement among our attendees on the evils of sexual abuse of children
Ned Ryun board member of American Conservative Union:
quote:
While I'm all for free speech, there is such a thing as vile, hateful speech that does not deserve a platform
Rich Lowry, editor at the National Review
quote:
a colossal misjudgment to invite him...He's not a conservative, and in fact wants to overthrow Reagan conservatism, besides his other obvious failings...Now having disinvited him, CPAC looks like the censor--the worst of both worlds.
When a man gets disinvited from a national conservative speaking appointment after extolling the virtues of buggering 13 year olds...its political correctness gone mad, I say! I wonder if Trump will comment on this issue?
https://twitter.com/...anBattalion/status/833485040944156673
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2017 6:20 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 122 of 275 (800377)
02-22-2017 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
02-22-2017 1:38 PM


Re: Yiannopolous redeemed himself
After watching some of the press conference given by Yiannopolous I understand that he didn't mean to be extolling pedophilia, which is what he originally seemed to be doing
Well that's what originally said, did you not see it? He argued having sex with 13 year olds is not paedophilia therefore he wasn't arguing in favour of paedophilia.
quote:
You're misunderstanding what paedophilia means. Paedophilia is not a sexual attraction to someone, 13 years old, who is sexually mature. Paedophilia is the attraction to children who have not reached puberty.
I'll leave it to you to decide if you think having sex with 13 year olds is problematic. He was extolling the virtues of having sex with 13 year olds, where said 13 year olds were sexually mature. He has now said this was wrong, but it was exactly as it seemed to be - which to his credit he called wrong. He avoided some specificity over what was wrong, but the implication was there, and it was a little deceptive, but that's to be expected from Milo.
So it's not fake news
It was never thought of as fake news. His words were quite clear.
and he's now corrected his first impression quite believably in my opinion, taking most of the blame for it himself, on his style of gay British sarcasm.
His statement was contrite and appropriate. But I reject that it was 'gay British sarcasm'. I posted the full statement earlier, despite his claims that the video was cut, it included the portions where he agreed with the age of consent - and also the parts where he said he hated liberals for their 'arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent which totally destroys the understanding many of us have of the complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships'.
The context of the discussion, despite his claims in his statement was about 17 year olds. It was about relationships below the age of consent who despite 'arbitrary' lines drawn from legal purposes are morally able to consent. Liberals of course, have been long saying the same thing, while also arguing that the lines need to exist in law. He should have argued against the right wing for their steadfast absolutist stance on these things, but he prefers to attack liberals for saying the things he admitted in his apology about how victims can be victims without realizing or thinking of themselves as victims but how these things can affect lives without the victim realizing it. Strange that he took the opportunity to take a potshot at 'victimhood culture' while also acknowledging this liberal position. I think its evidence that his own caricature of his opponents has resulted in some of his bizarre contradiction in this matter. I hope he comes to learn more about the issues.
Here is further context from the uncut video I posted earlier from the other commenters that shows the context of the discussion:
quote:
Milo:...this sort of child abuse stuff to the point where we are heavily policing relationships between consenting adults like grad students and professors at universities.
someone else: I have a video on consent if you want to watch that.
....
SE: If Milo is OK with adults getting their cock sucked by 14 year olds...{some unrelated Banter}
Another SE {I think called 'Paul'}: The whole consent thing is not some black and white thing that people try and paint it. Are there 13 year olds capable of giving informed consent to have sex with an adult? Probably. but I was also a 13 year old. I hung around with 13 year old guys....and there were some of them that still thought girls were fucking 'icky' at 13; and not many but they were just coming out of that phase. I don't know that I was ready at 13 to get fucked in the ass by a 28 year old black drag queen is what I'm saying. The reason these age of consent laws exist is because we have to set some kind of barometer here. We've got to pick an age where we can reasonably be assured you're an adult, you can give informed consent, you understand the risks - pregnancy risks and all that bullshot
Then Milo gives his monologue I posted in full in Message 108 where agrees with the law, but argues that morally it can not only be OK, but life affirming for a 13 year old who is sexually mature to have a sexual relationship with an older person (focussing particularly on gay relationships).
So I think he was deceptive in his re-framing, although I support his contrition and apology at his flippancy and disregard for victims - and it's only human to do a bit of reframing when you've had the kind of pushback he's had. I think he's right to call his comments 'wrong', although it does undermine his point about the arbitrary nature of age of consent laws. I also acknowledge that some media outlets reported his comments about learning BJ techniques from a priest as if they were sincere, which is ridiculous - they clearly were a joke.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 02-22-2017 1:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 154 of 275 (800633)
02-26-2017 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by jar
02-26-2017 8:47 AM


Re: On the Indian question
There is now an assertion that the shooting of the Indians was not hate despite what the person said because he was drunk.
Since it is illegal to be drunk while in possession of a firearm in Kansas, but since he is being charged with murder and it is unlikely a misdemeanour will be included in the charges - will it be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing?
Likewise, one might think it petty - but since the right is so keen on the rule of law and all - if the gentleman was so drunk that his declaration 'Get outta my country' cannot be held to be an accurate representation as to his state of mind - does that mean the bartender should be held criminally liable under 41-715?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by jar, posted 02-26-2017 8:47 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by jar, posted 02-26-2017 5:51 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(6)
Message 155 of 275 (800634)
02-26-2017 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Faith
02-26-2017 3:47 PM


Re: strategy?
Central Leftist Information Twisting Organization
We are all avid fans of the CLIT organisation.
/unnecessary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 02-26-2017 3:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(3)
Message 204 of 275 (801032)
03-02-2017 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Faith
03-02-2017 1:43 PM


the big picture
Homicide still doesn't fit the facts, it's too extreme.
-cide - killer of
Genocide - killing a 'genus' of people - a 'kind' - eg a race
Fratricide - killing your sibling {ie brother, as in fraternity}, sometimes including symbolic brothers such as fellow soldiers.
Patricide / Matricide - killing father or mother respectively
Regicide - killing royalty - or more generally 'a ruler' - as in 'regal'.
Suicide - killing yourself - sui - meaning yourself in Latin. Not many common examples, sui generis (of his own kind)
Pesicide - killing pests - see also fungicide (fungi), herbicide (vegetation) and insecticide
Infanticide - killing an infant
Tyranicide - like regicide only a tyrant. Killing Hitler might have been described this way, had say Operation Valkyrie succeeded.. The killing of Julius Caeser likewise.
Deicide - killing a god. Arguably the execution of Jesus might be considered deicide. As Deus, Deity. Deus Pater - Jupiter - Father God.
Spermicide - a chemical that 'kills' sperm, used in contraceptive materials such as condoms.
Homocide - killing a human, as in 'homo'.
Homocide can be negligent (such as not feeding or medicating someone in your care, or failing to maintain something that fails resulting in death), it can be accidental. It can also be legal and morally defensible (see justifiable homicide. A cop that kills a person who is threatening people with a gun may have been involved in a justifiable homicide).
With regards to black lives matter:
If justice was done how does that give BLM a case. OK, if they brought it about, fine, they had ONE case to justify their protest.
Well here's the thing - specific incidents may inflame tensions. They may get media coverage and be a key talking point. But that isn't the driving force behind BLM. Let's take a look at overall numbers. In 2015 there were about 1,000 people killed in the US by police. 500 of them were white. 260 black. 170 Hispanic.
This is disproportional to the population sizes. If it were proportional it'd be the case that 720 were white, 130 were black and 160 were Hispanic. It seems white people are less likely to be killed by the police and black people are more likely to be killed by police. The Hispanic numbers are 'about right'.
The protest was primarily aimed at bringing attention to, and hoping to change, this disproportionality.
There are some (potentially) good arguments as to why this disproportionality exists, but I think (as do the BLM movement) they ultimately fail. Yes, black people and cops are disproportionally more likely to interact, but this is its own problem as there are statistics, and testimony, that black people get stopped and searched, questioned etc more regularly than white people.
Again, sometimes a certain case is held up for illustrative purposes to show an example of what the statistics are saying in aggregate. For instance:
In this 6 minute video a white man walks down the street with an AR-15 in an open carry state (Texas). He is politely questioned by police the white man and his associates ask questions and allow the officer to inspect the AR-15 and ultimately they are allowed on their way {actually not all of this is in the short version, there is a longer version of the white person's encounter that contains this}. A black man does the same, and the police yell at him - hold him at gunpoint tell him to get on the ground along with his unarmed pregnant black wife. Several police vehicles with sirens turn up, a canine unit arrives. They are both detained but not arrested. It was a tense few minutes and I'd be scared out of my mind in the latter encounter. I can see how mistakes could happen on either side leading to less fortunate results.
This is not necessarily representative, it could be unfairly edited for instance, but is illustrative of the overall impression that many black people have of how they are treated differently - showing viscerally what the cold statistics show numerically.
Black Lives Matters is not 'and therefore white ones {or 'blue' ones} don't'. As a movement it gained quite a size and undoubtedly some angry, violent and even racist members - just like with right-wing organisations joined in. The movement itself however isn't asking for more white and hispanic people to get shot, but to try to raise awareness to lower the number of black people getting shot - and to have their deaths treated the same as when white people are killed.
This isn't necessarily because 'cops are racist' as individuals, although likely some are, it is a systemic and cultural issue of which these differences in numbers and encounters are symptoms.
Of those 1,000 deaths in 2015 - it is undoubtedly the case that least some of them were unjustified. That's just inevitable. And if the number in 2015 is reflective of other years, that probability goes up year on year. How many officers were held criminally liable for any of these deaths? I'm not entirely sure, but in the 10 year window from 2005 and 2015 if the rate is 1,000 a year - 10,000 people were killed by cops. 13 cops were convicted of murder or manslaughter. If you arm your cops with firearms routinely, that's the price you have to pay - more people being killed per decade than were killed in the 9/11 attacks or all of terrorism in the US in general.
As a point of comparison, the UK, since the year 2000 has had 41 people killed by police. I can list them:
Yassar Yaqub
Lewis Skelton
Josh Pitt
Dalian Atkinson
William Smith
James Wilson
Jermaine Baker
Richard Davies
James Fox
Dean Joseph
Anthony Grainger
Mark Duggan
Kingsley Burrell
Jimmy Mubenga
Olaseni Lewis
Keith Richards
Ian Tomlinson
Mervyn Tussler
David Sycamore
Andrew Hammond
Sean Rigg
Habib Ullah
Mark Saunders
Dayniel Tucker
Ann Sanderson
Terry Nicholas
Robert Haines
Steven Colwell
Philip Marsden
Craig King
Jean Charles de Menezes
John Mark Scott
Azelle Rodney
Simon Murden
Nicholas Palmer
Philip Prout
Keith Larkins
Derek Bennett
Andrew Kernan
Patrick O'Donell
Kirk Davies
There is a cultural problem at stake here, and if you are prepared to take on the responsibility of an armed nation and the associated armed police force, you have take responsibility to face these kinds of issues. Is it unreasonable to suppose that human biases, unconscious or systematically reinforced might need addressing through conscious action and awareness raising?
There was someone shot at Berkeley University Riots, to try to find someway to tie this into the topic. The police tried to be hands off to avoid deaths or further injury. They were criticised in some circles for this stand-off approach.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 03-02-2017 1:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Faith, posted 03-02-2017 8:16 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 03-02-2017 8:36 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 207 of 275 (801037)
03-02-2017 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Faith
03-02-2017 8:16 PM


Re: the big picture
That's a very nice overview and I get your point.
Thank you.
None of those cases I listed, including Garner, amount to a sufficient justification for BLM, and it makes BLM look like a defense of criminal behavior.
I imagine this is largely down to how different sources have spun the narrative. A singular incident here is used by some people to prove cops are bad, a singular incident there is used by some others to prove BLM are bad. How about just look at the big picture, decide if there is a problem, why it exists, and how can we address those root causes? Even if you disagree with the means some are using in their attempts to raise awareness, you can agree with the central cause they are attempting to draw attention to.
So, it's sad if a black man gets killed for threatening a cop who is trying to deal with a petty crime, but what is the solution? Disarm the cop so the petty criminal can kill HIM? What IS the solution?
I can't provide a singular solution to all problems I'm afraid. However, the key here is that it isn't just about people who get shot for threatening a cop. It's the people that get shot who don't threaten a cop that are the truly sad cases. Yes, some folk also threaten cops, but would they have been a threat if it weren't the twentieth time they had been stopped while minding their business? Sometimes anger can be interpreted as 'threatening' by cops. Either way the only solution I can think of (and others have also proposed: I'm not alone) to mitigate these cases is for police culture and training to be changed so that pulling a gun is not a first thing they do - as was seen in the video of the black man obeying the law and exercising his constitutional rights who had a gun pointed at him and his pregnant unarmed wife. When threatened with a gun, regardless of who holds it - adrenaline shoots up and this can sometimes make even decent and non-criminal people do things which can worry a cop enough to raise their adrenaline and cause them to discharge a weapon when it never needed to happen. The gun handling mantra of 'never point a weapon at something you don't intend to destroy' springs to mind. The cop in the video seems to break that mantra and used it merely as a threat and a defence, a way to make his job easier and for him to personally feel safer though he may have been making the situation more dangerous.
If the police dealt with people with the presumption of innocence, maybe more police would die, maybe. But then maybe less people would die over all - which has got to be a win because surely that would include perfectly innocent people as well as petty criminals who don't deserve death just because they are intransigient.
De-escalation training, an change from the treating of black suspects as more dangerous than white ones will feed back into the 'black population' so as to increase their trust of law enforcement and lower tensions and fear during police stops.
Obviously, the UK manages to get away with it, but the chances of lowering gun ownership to those that have a legitimate reason for ownership and banning things such as rifles and handguns almost entirely in the USA is basically zero. So all you can hope for is to mitigate the damage that will be done.
It's hard for me to sympathize with a major and sometimes violent protest over such incidents.
How about you sympathize with a major movement, and their peaceful adherents who are protesting that black people are put into these standoffs more regularly? That protest unarmed black folk who pose no threat are still getting shot more regularly than their white counterparts? While also condemning those that escalate their anger into violence? You don't have to condemn the whole movement because of some incidents that are magnified by media reports.
You manage to 'disown' violent 'Christians' as not really Christian. Why not discount violent BLM protesters as illegitimate protesters? Why not see the problems they are trying to draw attention to and join their indignation. It won't make you complicit in the actions of all the people that feel likewise. Reject 'guilt by association' entirely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Faith, posted 03-02-2017 8:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 03-02-2017 8:54 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 03-02-2017 9:08 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 213 of 275 (801044)
03-02-2017 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
03-02-2017 8:36 PM


Re: the big picture
And there was that sad case of the kid with the toy gun. Cops may overreact from fear you know, which could explain the disparity in that video you posted between their treatment of the white guy with the gun and the black guy with the gun (I haven't watched it, do you think it's necessary?).
Yes, cops get scared of black guys more than they get scared of white guys. That is a problem. It's an intrinsic bias. It might not be solvable entirely but hopefully it can be mitigated through raising awareness, training etc. The video isn't necessary but I've watched hours of videos you posted and it is useful to understand the point being illustrated.
Why are black people more scary? Shouldn't we try to correct this. Even if only a bit?
And what if there is a trend of blacks tending to react threateningly to police intervention, is that taken into account in the disproportionate statistics?
Not exactly, no. The point is, even if that were true ,why is it true? Is it because they are sick of being constantly stopped and searched disproportionally to white people? That sometimes they get angry or seemingly aggressive at the injustice of a system that seems to target them because of their race - even if individuals are not racist, the system or culture seems to be - and this can make people angry. Anger is justified, but with armed scared cops - it can lead to bad situations. So why is it (black people disproportionally being angry or aggressive) happening, if it is happening? What are the root causes? How do we address them?
Is it poverty? Social injustice? Over-vigilance against their racial group? Poor educational opportunities? A combination of factors? Can we combat this?
How about the black community take some responsibility and deal with their own attitudes?
Ok, look, this is the kind of thing that is likely to raise people's backs. You should probably keep that in mind and try to word your points more cautiously or diplomatically.
For a start, plenty of black people are taking responsibility and encourage their community towards better relations with the police. Obama commented on it. He said a few things, in the few minutes of searching I was able to find him imploring
quote:
turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white
that was 2004 in his keynote speech. Also I found an interview with Oprah:
quote:
We have to change attitudes. There's a strain of anti-intellectualism running in our community that we have to eliminate. I'm young enough to understand where that opposition culture, that rebellion against achievement, comes from.
Oprah: Where does it comes from?
Barack: Fearat least for me and a lot of young African-Americans. There's a sense in which we feel that the only way to assert strength is to push away from a society that says we're not as good. It's like: Instead of trying to compete, I'm going to have my own thing, and my own thing may be the streets or rap music.
Oprah: Do you think we've lost the belief that we can succeed? I was talking with Skip Gates [Henry Louis Gates, scholar of African-American history and culture], and he was saying how ironic it is that our parents believed that their little nappy-headed boys and girls could grow up and be somebody if they worked twice as hard.
Barack: We no longer operate that way, but we should be working twice as hard, because we still have challenges and barriers other communities don't have.
Also from 2004.
But white folk have the numbers, they have the money, they have the power - far more than black folk overall. The question is *why* do black folk have an 'attitude problem'? Is it because they are disenfranchised with a system they feel is against them anyway, so why bother as only a lucky few break out of poverty? Is it because they have been historically oppressed to the point where there is a 'black culture' seperate from a 'white' culture to such a point that each group fears adopting the behaviours and customs of the other for fear of being branded a race-traitor? Can this be mitigated by improving opportunities for black youth? Loaning money to the community in fair and decent ways to allow them to reduce the number in poverty through education and business expansion?
If the police are seeming to target them more than others, perhaps their attitude problem is understandable. If the housing market is biased against, the job market, educational opportunities....perhaps there are ways to fix this that start way before a gun gets drawn at all.
So sure, 'they' have a responsibility. But we all do. Not being black our responsibilities are different, perhaps, in some ways, but they still exist. 'We' white people control the government, the justice system, the billionaire business owners clubs.... Historically 'we' white people created the cultural and social divide, created the familial poverty that continues to be inherited today no matter how 'enlightened' we are - those problems have been inherited. The social divides are still felt. Your comment may be accurate but it might be perceived as laying all the responsibility on the black community even as they are the present day victims of the prejudices that arise out of the problems caused by the divisions imposed upon them by the white folks who historically oppressed them - meaning their neighbourhoods are still filled with poverty, their educational prospects are lower. Better than 1950, but still room for improvement.
It'll take generations to change black culture, but we can start training cops today. If society seems less hostile to black people, their culture will adapt in return. A system of mutual feedback, but I think those in power who have inherited the benefits of historical oppression should take on the responsibility for kickstarting it. And we shouldn't blame the black community for being angry, for protesting, for trying to raise awareness at the inherent problems they face that white people often escape.
Over time, it may succeed, but 'we white' folk have to take *more* responsibility for 'black folks' attitude than 'we' are doing. 'We', in a historical and thus in present day to an extent, are responsible for it too - and have some considerable power to help change it. Likely a many generational issue before it is resolved, if it ever is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 03-02-2017 8:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 03-02-2017 9:37 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 214 of 275 (801047)
03-02-2017 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Faith
03-02-2017 9:08 PM


Re: the big picture
Tell you what. If BLM protestors, or the black community in general, loudly denounced the violence that associates itself with them, even the obstruction of streets that sometimes occurs and causes problems for others, I'd be far more open to your argument.
Obstruction of streets and causing inconvenience is a peaceful way of protesting. Yes, it is civil disobedience but then so were the 'sit ins' that lead to and were employed by the Civil Rights Movements of the 60s. How's this:
quote:

The Black Lives Matter Network advocates for dignity, justice, and respect

The Black Lives Matter Network advocates for dignity, justice, and respect.

In the last few days, this country witnessed the recorded murders of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile at the hands of police, the latest victims in this country’s failed policing system. As we have done for decades, we marched and protested to highlight the urgent need to transform policing in America, to call for justice, transparency and accountability, and to demand that Black Lives Matter.

In Dallas, many gathered to do the same, joining in a day of action with friends, family, and co-workers. Their efforts were cut short when a lone gunman targeted and attacked 11 police officers, killing five. This is a tragedy—both for those who have been impacted by yesterday’s attack and for our democracy. There are some who would use these events to stifle a movement for change and quicken the demise of a vibrant discourse on the human rights of Black Americans. We should reject all of this.

Black activists have raised the call for an end to violence, not an escalation of it. Yesterday’s attack was the result of the actions of a lone gunman. To assign the actions of one person to an entire movement is dangerous and irresponsible. We continue our efforts to bring about a better world for all of us.
Just a moment...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 03-02-2017 9:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 219 of 275 (801054)
03-02-2017 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
03-02-2017 9:37 PM


Re: the big picture
Just convince me.
What would find convincing? Black people getting killed by police twice as often, per capita, as would be expected if all things being equal should be enough to be persuaded a problem exists.
I could give more statistics, if that helps. How about Forbes, a conservative leaning source that reports:
quote:
Last year {2011}, the NYPD made more stops of young black men than there are young black men in the city's population. 158,406 young black men live in New York City and the NYPD made 168,126 stops.
Young black and Latino men account for 4.7% of NYC’s population but 41.6% of the stops in 2011.
this study suggests:
quote:
evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being black, unarmed, and shot by police is about 3.49 times the probability of being white, unarmed, and shot by police on average
the maligned Washington Post collated a database and concluded:
quote:
when factoring in threat level, black Americans who are fatally shot by police are, in fact, less likely to be posing an imminent lethal threat to the officers at the moment they are killed than white Americans fatally shot by police...The only thing that was significant in predicting whether someone shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black. . . . Crime variables did not matter in terms of predicting whether the person killed was unarmed.
Just a moment... {BLM affiliated}: no correlation between the level of violent crime in an area and that area’s police killing rates...fewer than one in three black people killed by police in 2016 were suspected of a violent crime or armed.
The San Francisco district attorney:
quote:
racial disparities regarding S.F.P.D. stops, searches, and arrests, particularly for Black people...the disparity gap in arrests was found to have been increasing in San Francisco...although Black people accounted for less than 15 percent of all stops in 2015, they accounted for over 42 percent of all non-consent searches following stops....Of all people searched without consent, Black and Hispanic people had the lowest ‘hit rates’ (i.e., the lowest rate of contraband recovered)
White folk were twice as likely to have contraband .
The Department of Justice:
quote:
African Americans are more than twice as likely as white drivers to be searched during vehicle stops even after controlling for non-race based variables such as the reason the vehicle stop was initiated, but are found in possession of contraband 26% less often than white drivers, suggesting officers are impermissibly considering race as a factor when determining whether to search
Chicago Police Accountability Task force:
quote:
black and Hispanic drivers were searched approximately four times as often as white drivers, yet [the Chicago Police Department’s] own data show that contraband was found on white drivers twice as often as black and Hispanic drivers.
ACLU:
quote:
African American and Latino drivers are nearly twice as likely as white drivers to be asked during a routine traffic stop for ‘consent’ to have their car searched. Yet white motorists are 49% more likely than African American motorists to have contraband discovered during a consent search by law enforcement, and 56% more likely when compared to Latinos
NYT:
quote:
{Police} used their discretion to search black drivers or their cars more than twice as often as white motoristseven though they found drugs and weapons significantly more often when the driver was white...officers were more likely to stop black drivers for no discernible reason. And they were more likely to use force if the driver was black, even when they did not encounter physical resistance
Justice Department:
quote:
{The sheriff’s office} engages in racial profiling of Latinos; unlawfully stops, detains, and arrests Latinos; and unlawfully retaliates against individuals who complain about or criticize [the office’s] policies or practices
Harvard study: police officers are more likely to use their hands, push a suspect into a wall, use handcuffs, draw weapons, push a suspect onto the ground, point their weapon, and use pepper spray or a baton when interacting with blacks.
Center for Policing Equity : African-Americans are far more likely than whites and other groups to be the victims of use of force by the police, even when racial disparities in crime are taken into account
Several big universities study:
quote:
police used less force with highly stereotypical Whites, and this protective effect was stronger than the effect for non-Whites
Dept of Justice:
quote:
Analysis of limited data suggests that, in certain precincts, S.P.D. officers may stop a disproportionate number of people of color where no offense or other police incident occurred
governor’s task force : 9 out of the 10 off-duty officers killed by other officers in the United States since 1982 were black or Latino
Stanford:2,890 African Americans handcuffed but not arrested in a 13-month period, while only 193 whites were cuffed. When Oakland officers pulled over a vehicle but didn’t arrest anyone, 72 white people were handcuffed, while 1,466 African Americans were restrained

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 03-02-2017 9:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 03-02-2017 10:17 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 03-04-2017 3:20 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 230 of 275 (801225)
03-04-2017 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Faith
03-04-2017 3:20 AM


Re: the big picture (BLM)
Well, it's true I would like to be convinced. I want to be sympathetic to the problems you are describing, and overall I think I am.
Good. Now that the protests, and those that support the need for protest like me, have raised your awareness - it's time to discuss how to deal with it.
I'm very bothered by the rhetoric "Black Liberation" movement.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm bothered by the raised arm with the fist.
Why?
I'm bothered by the insistence that Trayvon Martin was murdered.
Why?
Perhaps most of the protestors are just fed up with the problems as you describe them
Well that's what they say. Seems an important factor.
but the BLM rhetoric doesn't bode a peaceful protest to me.
Are you only looking at some rhetoric, or are you looking at the totality of it?
Even if most of their complaints have merit, there is still the problem of how their complaints are getting expressed in the BLM. And even if most of the protestors are peaceful there seems to be an inherent violence in BLM despite the peaceful motives of most of them (assuming most of them ARE peaceful)
So convince me.
Such as Leftist influence
Doesn't equate to inherent violence.
Soros for instance
There's no evidence of violence here.
and violent elements including racist statements against white people which may or may not be held by most participanhts in the movement.
Whether it is held by most participants seems an important factor in deciding this, does it not?
After comparing your persuasive descriptions with the other information I've been finding, I come to this conclusion: They no doubt have a decent case for their complaints, but the method of protest and the ideology of BLM is violent and destructive overall and it can't serve their cause well to resort to such methods.
A claim made against just about any successful protest in history. The success of the Civil Rights movement, of those fighting against the oppression of homosexuals and transgender people, those fighting anti-semitism.... The thing is, based on what you have said you have only innuendo ('leftist influence') and some individual cases. A large movement is composed of many people. Large numbers of people will always have elements you dislike. The Tea Party movement, for instance had elements who called for Obama to be hanged.
If what they want to do is bring the injustices to the attention of the public they need to adopt genuinely peaceful methods, even protest marches but like MLK's, not these that are based on Marxist hate rhetoric
Here's what they said about MLK's peaceful protests:
quote:
However, we are now confronted by a series of demonstrations by some of our Negro citizens, directed and led in part by outsiders. We recognize the natural impatience of people who feel that their hopes are slow in being realized. But we are convinced that these demonstrations are unwise and untimely.
We agree rather with certain local Negro leadership which has called for honest and open negotiation of racial issues in our area. And we believe this kind of facing of issues can best be accomplished by citizens of our own metropolitan area, white and Negro, meeting with their knowledge and experience of the local situation. All of us need to face that responsibility and find proper channels for its accomplishment.
Just as we formerly pointed out that "hatred and violence have no sanction in our religious and political traditions," we also point out that such actions as incite to hatred and violence, however technically peaceful those actions may be, have not contributed to the resolution of our local problems. We do not believe that these days of new hope are days when extreme measures are justified in Birmingham.
And of course MLK@
quote:
You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.
In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.
...
You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.
...
Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
...
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
...
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.
There is a big divide, unfortunately, between the cause as you outline it, and the methods of the BLM as I keep discovering them.
There have been some 2,000 protests by BLM. I've seen a handful of problems - some of them caused by right-wing people shooting or threatening to shoot BLM protesters. Having seen your research methods, I suspect you are looking for problems but not looking for the non-problems giving you a skewed impression.
I worry that you, and people like you, are allowing the media to tell you a story that distracts from the message of BLM: There are big problems still today and they need to be solved. Rather than worry that some people say things that sound a little too militant to you, that fewer still perform violent acts, that they disagree with you about certain specific incidents or they perform inappropriate gestures - let's find our common grounds. The police's interaction with black people is problematic and it results in innocent people dying, it results in petty criminals that don't deserve death getting killed. It results in cops dying. We need to fix this, agreed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 03-04-2017 3:20 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 03-04-2017 2:01 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 235 by Faith, posted 03-04-2017 3:34 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 233 of 275 (801235)
03-04-2017 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Faith
03-04-2017 2:01 PM


Re: the big picture (BLM)
I was in Berkeley in the sixties. I know Marxist symbols and rhetoric when I see them. The very term "Liberation" identifies it.
I doubt that. Convince me, don't tell me that you are convinced.
Women's Liberation
Maternity leave, action against domestic violence, voting, equal pay for equal work etc. All seem admirable goals to me.
Gay Liberation
You're going to have to work hard to persuade me this was a problem.
And Marxism is NOT peaceful
I see no reason it can't be, and certainly no reason to think it must be non-peaceful. I think tying Marxism in here is diluting the term Marxism into meaninglessness.
Further, I don't see why 'pacifism' should be the only or best way to deal with oppressive ideologies such as sexism, racism or homophobia. You yourself argued that taking a passive stance against the violent ideology of Islam is 'leftist snowflake' talk and won't be effective, right? Sometimes you have confront evil, and those that passively support it in ignorance with something more than complaining, agreed?
A little bit of trouble, disruption and even, unfortunately, violence is sometimes needed against those that don't listen to reason or passionate speeches.
The site I linked that gives the history of BLM as starting with Marxist revolutionaries is no doubt correct.
Talk me through it. I couldn't see any evidence presented that Alicia Garza is a Marxist revolutionary.
As it says, the violence of BLM is "well documented."
So show me.
I'm doing my best to believe you that much of the movement is not violent and has no desire to be violent
Do you support those in the movement in their aims/goals where their tactics are peaceful?
And even if it is true they should leave a movement that promotes any form of violence whatever and model themselves on MLK instead.
What's to stop the violent people from joining this hypothetical movement too? It's a loose umbrella term, not a rigidly organised group, after all. Black Lives Matter is more of a slogan than a specific group. There are some groups within the group that try to give direction and organisation, but they can't control every person.
Also, stop trying to justify violent reactions to the cops who are doing nothing but responding to a crime call, and keep the focus on the harassment and threatening attitude they see in police work in black neighborhoods.
As the evidence I posted earlier demonstrates quite categorically, the police are responding to crime calls, and performing spontaneous searches in a manner quite different when their target is black rather than white. This is a problem, and whether violence or anger or 'threatening' is justified or not, it should be understandable -yes?
They aren't going to get solutions to those problems with any degree of violence in their movement, cop killing, white bashing, Marxist symbology and rhetoric.
You said that you'd be more persuaded if BLM supporters publicly denounced violence etc. They do this, but you still lump them with the elements you dislike or distrust.
Again, I call for you to see the common grounds, fight with them to change the problems peacably and spend less time worrying about Marxism or some individuals saying things you disagree with. Magnify their good side, their cause, their dream. By all means follow it with a comment about some particular sections being problematic, but don't focus on the problems with the movement so much that the problems they are trying to draw attention to are lost. This tactic of suppressing a movement's grievances by zooming in on a few problems and exaggerating the elements that cause fear and uncertainty and doubt is old - but it should resisted.
They used this tactic against MLK too, remember? It was used against the Tea Party.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 03-04-2017 2:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 03-04-2017 3:25 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 238 of 275 (801248)
03-04-2017 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Faith
03-04-2017 3:25 PM


Re: the big picture (BLM)
You can address inequities for women, blacks, gays or any other group without Marxist Liberationism. I don't know if I can convince you that the term itself is the problem, it carries a ton of Marxist baggage.
If you can't persuade me, I reject your thesis in favour of an alternate.
I wouldn't get anywhere trying to defend even the legitimate causes of the movement when there is any Marxist element or violent element or racist white bashing element involved in it.
Why not? Why can't you fight racism just because some people fighting racism are in your view problematic? Many, if not most of the people that fought Nazis were communists - do you have difficulty defending the cause of defeating Hitler because of this?
Some enterprising blacks need to get together and make the case without the Marxism and the racism and the violence.
They have, you just seem to lump them in with those that you feel aren't and consequently ignore them or smear them with guilt by association or something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 03-04-2017 3:25 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024