Page 9 of 11 [ 164 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

12 Jul 2016, 10:07 pm

Dillogic wrote:
AspE wrote:
Who gives a s**t about some minor violence? People are dying. BLM isn't responsible for any deaths. The nature of Trump supporters' belligerence is quite different than that of BLM. Trump supporters are xenophobic jerks with repugnant opinions. BLM supporters are righteously upset about their friends and family being shot unfairly by the police, something that's been happening for more than a century.


You're being biased here.

For example: BLM started over justified shootings, and has continued with the same (with the minority of incidents perhaps pointing to actual brutality by the police), as poster boys and gals. That's basing your entire movement on knee-jerk ignorance in the least.

BLM supporters have called for murdering police (that aren't related to the incidents they promote as brutality). It's easy to find. They say it at actual protests in the streets.

On the other hand, you have BLM supporters calling for peace and understanding.

You need to acknowledge these if you want to bring up Trump supporters that are bigots. Not all Trump supporters are bigots, just as not all BLM protesters chant for murder.

Continuing with "us versus them" doesn't help anyone, and you should try the understanding part that some BLM supporters promote.

BLM didn't start over justified shootings. At least I don't feel they were justified. Can't it be that police too often react out of fear and too often make lethal decisions that in hindsight are errors? Something is happening with police, and I'm not saying it's because these police are consciously racist. It isn't ignorance to compare our society to others and see that this doesn't happen in other places, not at this rate.

As far as promoting murder, do you mean a silly chant that refers to the police as pigs or bacon? This is a tool of language that began with the Black Panthers, who I admire, and it serves to undermine the artificial respect we are supposed to feel for the police, who are just human beings with human flaws. They wield the power of the state, and we can't be complacent with power. Power corrupts.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,770

12 Jul 2016, 10:24 pm

AspE wrote:
BLM didn't start over justified shootings. At least I don't feel they were justified. Can't it be that police too often react out of fear and too often make lethal decisions that in hindsight are errors? Something is happening with police, and I'm not saying it's because these police are consciously racist. It isn't ignorance to compare our society to others and see that this doesn't happen in other places, not at this rate.

As far as promoting murder, do you mean a silly chant that refers to the police as pigs or bacon? This is a tool of language that began with the Black Panthers, who I admire, and it serves to undermine the artificial respect we are supposed to feel for the police, who are just human beings with human flaws. They wield the power of the state, and we can't be complacent with power. Power corrupts.


Martin was justified by the court and citizens. Brown was justified in the same way (Brown was when it started in earnest). And it goes on. If you don't think they were, then you're going against a jury of "reasonable people" and the courts.

You have to show that "something is happening with police". Are more people killed today than say, 10 years ago? 20 years ago? How many are justified shootings; how many are negligent, manslaughter or murder? Racial breakdowns across various qualifiers. And so on. Is it worst now? Is it better now, but social media makes it seem worse? What should the police do if say, the grand majority of lethal force incidents are justified (which they seem to be)? What should they do if not? Shouldn't we accept that there'll always be a small number of lethal force incidents that aren't justified, and that's the price you pay for having police?

There's open source videos at rallies saying people have to shoot police (this is neglecting Twitter and Facebook posts).

As far as I can see, the only thing that can really change lethal force incidents (on the assumption that most are good shoots) is pulling police patrols out from the streets and in turn decriminalizing non-violent crimes on the state and federal level. This will remove people escalating when pulled over for non-violent crimes simply by removing it from happening. Which is libertarianism for the most part.

Ironically, that's pretty much what BLM said they wanted yesterday.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,211

13 Jul 2016, 1:35 am

Evidence of division at Obama's speech at the Dallas ceremony:

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/texas/art ... 355919.php


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,493

13 Jul 2016, 5:16 am

AspE wrote:
luan78zao wrote:
Lukeda420 wrote:
No, but overall it's a very peaceful movement.



Blocking major roads is not peaceful, it's a violation of others' right to travel. If this continues it's only a matter of time until someone dies because their ambulance was held up. Protest in the town square or city park all you like, but don't block the freeway.

And if I'm trying to get my injured child to the hospital, and somebody with a sign decides to step in front of my vehicle? Three guesses as to my hierarchy of values at that point.

Black people are dying at the hands of the police. Blocking a street is really the least we can do to make people pay attention. Otherwise they can safely ignore you.

Being able to safely ignore is a good thing.

You can safely ignore every poster, every sign, every billboard you pass by and every ad on your TV, but that doesn't stop people putting them there and paying the cost, because they get a return on their investment. If BLM would line the roads, the streets, the parkways, but not block them, they would get noticed.

My favourite BLM protest was one where they all just laid about in a mall like they'd been shot down. They weren't blocking the route, they weren't demanding or intimidating and it was powerful imagery.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

13 Jul 2016, 8:23 am

Dillogic wrote:

Martin was justified by the court and citizens. Brown was justified in the same way (Brown was when it started in earnest). And it goes on. If you don't think they were, then you're going against a jury of "reasonable people" and the courts.

You have to show that "something is happening with police". Are more people killed today than say, 10 years ago? 20 years ago? How many are justified shootings; how many are negligent, manslaughter or murder? Racial breakdowns across various qualifiers. And so on. Is it worst now? Is it better now, but social media makes it seem worse? What should the police do if say, the grand majority of lethal force incidents are justified (which they seem to be)? What should they do if not? Shouldn't we accept that there'll always be a small number of lethal force incidents that aren't justified, and that's the price you pay for having police?

There's open source videos at rallies saying people have to shoot police (this is neglecting Twitter and Facebook posts).

As far as I can see, the only thing that can really change lethal force incidents (on the assumption that most are good shoots) is pulling police patrols out from the streets and in turn decriminalizing non-violent crimes on the state and federal level. This will remove people escalating when pulled over for non-violent crimes simply by removing it from happening. Which is libertarianism for the most part.

Ironically, that's pretty much what BLM said they wanted yesterday.

It's not just about one incident. Before social media, blacks were routinely abused and murdered in this fashion and the general public was largely oblivious. I don't have to show statistics, we have the videos. It is probably better now than it was 50 years ago, but that's not good enough.

Police should be disarmed. They can carry sticks like UK police. There can still be a SWAT team for more serious issues.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,770

13 Jul 2016, 9:19 am

AspE wrote:
It's not just about one incident. Before social media, blacks were routinely abused and murdered in this fashion and the general public was largely oblivious. I don't have to show statistics, we have the videos. It is probably better now than it was 50 years ago, but that's not good enough.

Police should be disarmed. They can carry sticks like UK police. There can still be a SWAT team for more serious issues.


You still need to show that the problem is actually a problem. Say, out of 400 black males killed by police a year [out of a population of 20 million males], 40 are unjustified; assume that training and education really can't get much better, and racism against black citizens is arguably the least in the world; do you accept those 40 unjustified killings for the net effect of having an overt police presence? Do the police actually have a net effect? How many people do they save compared to kill (assume unjust killings)? How can you stop them from coming into contact with people that resist arrest? How can you train them better to handle these situations; all the tasers, cameras and manpower in the world doesn't seem to effect all that much it seems. And on and on.

Citizens in the UK aren't allowed to carry firearms, so it's only fair that their police don't. The main point is, though: any criminal in the US has a high chance of having a firearm (UK, not so much) -- to disarm the police in the face of that isn't realistic, as any basic police has a high chance of running into a firearm. You won't have a police force anyway if they can't defend themselves and the public appropriately; no one will want to be one. You'll also be sued to hell and back as soon as one is killed by a firearm. They'll end up being rearmed very quickly.

The adage of, live by the sword, die by the sword, is ultimately at the core of the problem people are seeing. If people don't commit crimes, they won't come into [violent] contact with police in almost all cases. Of course, removing the sword from the police can have the same effect (at the expense of them probably dying a lot more), but good luck enforcing the law there when no one shows up (as I mentioned previously), or if they do, criminals laugh at them.

SWAT is a special call unit for special situations, like barricaded individuals armed with weapons normal police can't handle--it's a far cry from the drug dealer armed with a knife or pistol, the robbery suspect with the same, and what have you. You can't have SWAT patrolling the streets 24/7 so they can respond to these minor individuals with pistols before they get away.

You either go anarchy/libertarian (people settle stuff on their own), or pump more money into training and accept that some people will be killed by police as they enforce the laws people want enforced. The opposite being authoritarianism, with massive restrictions on freedom of movement, speech, private property ownership and other forms of behavior.

BLM speaks of "community policing". In the end, that'll just end up with people arming up and doing the exact same thing as the police do now.



ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

13 Jul 2016, 12:49 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Lukeda420 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
BLM are manipulated by a sensationalist media into thinking that racist white police are targeting and killing black males when that is simply not true. The media always frames it as a literal black vs white issue even if the alleged perpetrator isn't even white as was the case with Trayvon Martin, Freddie Gray, and now Philando Castile. This is 100% done deliberately.


Getting conspiratorial now, aren't we? :lol:


Is it not true?


I always thought it was true.

Is there anyone left in the world that doesn't believe our news is manipulated for political and personal reasons? That the owners of these rags are wealthy individuals and corporations with political ties?

The media is a pig and only seems to worsen the situation....Now all you hear out here is how noble and brave all police are....but news of BLM, their protests and demands has all but fallen from the news.



redrobin62
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,994
Location: Seattle, WA

13 Jul 2016, 4:55 pm

You know, there have been movements in Detroit, Baltimore and elsewhere titled 'We Must Stop Killing Each Other.' Their message is positive, their outlook is positive, they are people who want to reach out to their neighbors and lift them up, not bust a cap in their ass. https://www.facebook.com/WeMustStopKillingEachOther/

But you know. The. Press. Does. Not. Talk. About. Them. Why? They can't sell peace, only blood. If it bleeds, it leads, that kid of bullsh*t. And they know people are IGNORANT enough to believe the crap, the edited nonsense the way the media skews the news.

How the hell can somebody come to the conclusion of an unjustified police killing from a lousy f*cking video? Be real.

There's money to be gained from conflicts, and wars, and dissent, and fracases, and noisy protests, and commandeering microphones from politicians at conventions, and those with the money GLADLY, f*cking GLADLY, twist the news to keep people militant and keep their pockets lined with dough.

When. Will. People. Wake. Up. To. That. Truth. There is no us vs them, no white vs black. Don't be swayed by propaganda. There is NO war in America. We are all equal.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

13 Jul 2016, 6:37 pm

Dillogic wrote:
...You still need to show that the problem is actually a problem...

You need to educate yourself.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,211

13 Jul 2016, 8:33 pm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... s-protest/


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

13 Jul 2016, 8:49 pm

beneficii wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/13/why-highways-have-become-the-center-of-civil-rights-protest/


"They were occupying a highway that, a half-century ago, was constructed at the expense of St. Paul's historically black community. Interstate 94, like urban highways throughout the country, was built by erasing what had been black homes, dispersing their residents, severing their neighborhoods...."

Well if BLM wishes to oppose the use of State power to seize private property and destroy neighborhoods, I'm certainly with them on that issue. It's good to see BLM agreeing with important defenders of freedom like Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and William Rhenquist, who opposed the destruction of neighborhoods by the State in just that way by dissenting from the execrable Kelo vs. New London decision in 2005.

I look forward to BLM denouncing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, among others, who supported the power of the State to destroy people's homes and neighborhoods to make rich people richer.


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,595

13 Jul 2016, 9:41 pm

Darmok wrote:
beneficii wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/13/why-highways-have-become-the-center-of-civil-rights-protest/

It's good to see BLM agreeing with important defenders of freedom like Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and William Rhenquist, who opposed the destruction of neighborhoods by the State in just that way by dissenting from the execrable Kelo vs. New London decision in 2005.I look forward to BLM denouncing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, among others, who supported the power of the State to destroy people's homes and neighborhoods to make rich people richer.

Just to expand on the broader implications of this...recently a counter-movement called "all lives matter" has been kick started to counter BLM. The somewhat ignorant argument by their proponents (not surprisingly all disgruntled middle class whites) is that BLM only represent black self-interests and ignores other victims of police.

BLM is a grass roots social justice movement. It draws on support from different sections of the community who want to end racial prejudice. In addition their movement has more broadly bought to light social justice issues pertaining not just to police but also the criminal justice system, child protection and prisons.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,070
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Jul 2016, 11:02 pm

redrobin62 wrote:
You know, there have been movements in Detroit, Baltimore and elsewhere titled 'We Must Stop Killing Each Other.' Their message is positive, their outlook is positive, they are people who want to reach out to their neighbors and lift them up, not bust a cap in their ass. https://www.facebook.com/WeMustStopKillingEachOther/

But you know. The. Press. Does. Not. Talk. About. Them. Why? They can't sell peace, only blood. If it bleeds, it leads, that kid of bullsh*t. And they know people are IGNORANT enough to believe the crap, the edited nonsense the way the media skews the news.

How the hell can somebody come to the conclusion of an unjustified police killing from a lousy f*cking video? Be real.

There's money to be gained from conflicts, and wars, and dissent, and fracases, and noisy protests, and commandeering microphones from politicians at conventions, and those with the money GLADLY, f*cking GLADLY, twist the news to keep people militant and keep their pockets lined with dough.

When. Will. People. Wake. Up. To. That. Truth. There is no us vs them, no white vs black. Don't be swayed by propaganda. There is NO war in America. We are all equal.


That's been my point with most Black Live Matter demonstrations. The media doesn't cover the majority of them, because nothing bad happens at them.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,770

14 Jul 2016, 12:26 am

I'm actually really interested in say, police resorting to reactive policing only to avoid confrontations over minor offenses. This is what BLM want (it's one of their demands). "Smile and wave" and only take calls in other words.

Would the rest of the public be happy with that? People here?



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

14 Jul 2016, 1:04 am

Dillogic wrote:
I'm actually really interested in say, police resorting to reactive policing only to avoid confrontations over minor offenses. This is what BLM want (it's one of their demands).

Would the rest of the public be happy with that? People here?


It would be interesting to see what would happen to their communities if they pulled patrols, murder rates in these places have already exploded in these places the last couple years. Reducing all unneeded interactions I think is a good idea; there is too much of reliance on traffic tickets and such for revenue, drug prohibition really is wholly unmoral and is the spark of so many of these encounters as well as what keeps these criminal gangs in business, cops shouldn't be forced to meet quotas or "community contacts" which are essentially the same thing.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,070
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Jul 2016, 1:15 am

Dillogic wrote:
I'm actually really interested in say, police resorting to reactive policing only to avoid confrontations over minor offenses. This is what BLM want (it's one of their demands). "Smile and wave" and only take calls in other words.

Would the rest of the public be happy with that? People here?


No one wants cops to stop doing their job, just for cops to stop harassing a certain demographic of people (in this case African Americans) on the assumption that they're easy targets due to supposed criminality. That, and this notion in the legal system that malice on the part of law enforcement has to be proven in a police shooting, which has been a get-out-of-jail card for cops, has to come to an end.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer