Rioting in the U.S.

[pahaK]

Wait a minute what does that actually mean? You can't not have police.

Our local newspapers are saying this just means transferring the police duty to some other department. It's apparently done before (according to them during this century in Camden, New Jersey, and Compton, California). So, to me, it looks more like a political trick than anything else (police is dead, long live the police).

[Yoda]

Yeah, the pat response I'm hearing is "well, we'll just put all that into community programs and mental health programs and people won't want to commit crimes!" Which is hopelessly naive. Obviously investments in these things could significantly reduce crime, but the idea that it's going to eradicate it (or get it so low that you don't really need police) is patently absurd.

Even if you subscribe to this totally utopian view of the power of social programs, that's the kind of thing that manifests in years or decades, not next week, so disbanding the police force to do it, rather than after you have, doesn't make sense.

There have been experiments like this, and they can be absolute disasters. They tried it in Canada in the late 60s and six banks were robbed on the first day.

I hope/expect that this is just a big, bold dramatic headline action to stem the demands for awhile, but that in the longer-term, yeah, it'll just be a very strong-sounding way of reforming the force.

[gandalf26]

The documentary "LA 92" on Netflix is really good, documenting the Rodney King incident and fallout. Mirrors very closely what's happening today.

[Stirchley]

*Tried to return a lost Police helmet.

Do you have a link that supports this?

[gandalf26]

Do you have a link that supports this?

He's holding a Police helmet in the clip, but then again there appears to be another clip shown a day or 2 later with the man doing the same again approaching the Riot Police at another location. So perhaps the mayor was right and this guy was an agitator looking to provoke Police.

If all that is true you still don't have to shove a 75 year old man aggressively, throw a little of that passive aggression back at him and simply walk past him.

[Stirchley]

⬆️ I agree. Both sides were wrong. If I were that man I would not have approached them like he did. There’s a time & a place for being a hero.

[pahaK]

If all that is true you still don't have to shove a 75 year old man aggressively, throw a little of that passive aggression back at him and simply walk past him.

Some sources are saying he's attempting to scan/skim the police coms. I don't know anything about that sort of technical stuff, so no idea if it's true. If it is though, then I'd say the shove was completely justified. I don't feel sorry for the old man.

[Stirchley]

Some sources are saying he's attempting to scan/skim the police coms.

I don’t even know what this means.

[gandalf26]

Some sources are saying he's attempting to scan/skim the police coms. I don't know anything about that sort of technical stuff, so no idea if it's true. If it is though, then I'd say the shove was completely justified. I don't feel sorry for the old man.

Lots of severe head injuries are the result of a fall, people that die to a punch often do so because they fall and hit their head, so no I'd say it isn't justified in the slightest, there are other ways to go, arrest him, escort him away? Show a little bit of professionalism, restraint and thinking on your feet.

This guy was not a threat, was an old man, and shoving him backwards led to serious injury that could have been a lot worse.

It isn't the point at all that the man was up to no good, or whether or not George Floyd for example was resisting arrest whilst intoxicated, being extremely difficult, the point is Police far exceeding what they are or should be allowed to do in many instances both recently and over the years, and lack of consequences when they cross the line.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=65228

This is the current police chief of Minneapolis police department, Chief Medaria Arradondo. He was made chief of the police department in 2017. Why didn't he ban the use of knee choke holds like so many other police departments had already done? He's ultimately responsible for the officers under his authority.

[Stirchley]

Lots of severe head injuries are the result of a fall, people that die to a punch often do so because they fall and hit their head, so no I'd say it isn't justified in the slightest, there are other ways to go, arrest him, escort him away? Show a little bit of professionalism, restraint and thinking on your feet.

This guy was no a threat, was an old man, and shoving him backwards led to serious injury that could have been a lot worse.


Agree. Totally shocking what happened to him. I’m just glad he didn’t die because he could have died.

[Captain Steel]

Agree. Totally shocking what happened to him. I’m just glad he didn’t die because he could have died.

Just some thoughts on the 75 year-old man: his name is Martin Gugino and he is an activist.

I watched the video closely a couple more times. Allegedly he was on the street past curfew and the cops were on the march when he confronted them by stepping in front of them.

Some reports say that he was not returning a lost helmet he had in his hands, but he was carrying it around as some sort of prop (perhaps as a means to engage the cops or gain their attention).

The cop he gets directly in front of puts out his nightstick (holding both ends with his hands) but doesn't appear to make physical contact.

A cop next to the one holding the nightstick with both hands puts out his hand when Gugino appears to wave an object in front of the cop (appears to be Gugino's cell phone) - perhaps Gugino was filming and trying to get the cop's info on film?

The second cop barely touches Gugino, but does appear to make contact. As the cop's hand makes contact with Gugino's chest, Gugino was already stepping backward (apparently to avoid the cop's hand) he stumbles and falls backward, hitting his head on the sidewalk.

Hard to call this a "shove" as the momentum is all from Gugino stepping backward (but granted, he's moving in reverse to retreat from the cop's outstretched hand).

It doesn't appear to be a fake fall or injury as there is blood under his head.

People have said the cops just march past him - but the first cop with the nightstick starts to bend down to check Gugino, he's apparently stopped by a cop behind him who tells him to move on... BUT that same cop (apparently of a higher rank and thus giving orders) who tells the first one to move ahead gets on his radio and calls for medical help for Gugino. The audio parts of the film confirm this.

At first glance it looks really bad and callous, but under analysis, it's not quite as bad as it looks - the cops did not appear to be excessively violent or brutal, they did stop to get help for the man as an officer radios for medical aid immediately, but at the same time they were distracted with corralling other protesters which made it look like they just marched past the fallen man.

[cricket]

I thought a couple of the cops looked practically distraught after the man fell and they barely touched him. The old bastard is a clown amongst a sea of clowns for doing what he did, but I think they could've been a little more gentle with the old fella. As much as I enjoy seeing some of these people get roughed up, the police need to remember that hurting someone is not ok unless they're threatened.

[cricket]

Anyone see the guy who was bashing in a car window only to take a bullet from the driver? Definitely my favorite video of the day.

[pahaK]

As much as I enjoy seeing some of these people get roughed up, the police need to remember that hurting someone is not ok unless they're threatened.

I have a hunch they feel quite threatened these days. The net is full of videos about these riots around the world and in my opinion, the police are using far too little force to stop them. It's almost like certain political groups want this to happen now, but that would be a conspiracy theory :rolleyes:

[cricket]

I have a hunch they feel quite threatened these days. The net is full of videos about these riots around the world and in my opinion, the police are using far too little force to stop them. It's almost like certain political groups want this to happen now, but that would be a conspiracy theory :rolleyes:

Personally I'd like them to build a huge fire in the Grand Canyon and throw most of these people in, but unfortunately I am aware that the police often use too much force. On the other hand, if you allowed the police to use more force then maybe crime would go down. I'm torn:p

[cricket]

3 years old but but I get a kick out of it every once in a while. I know which of these guys I trust more.

https://youtu.be/QRen8nI8_aM

[TheUsualSuspect]

What the f*ck am I reading in this thread. This is embarrassing for this site.

[Yoda]

Then call it out, specifically. Oblique references aren't actionable, assuming there actually is something here that rises to the level of overt hate speech, which is what it would take for me to be "embarrassed." And if there is something like that, reporting it rather than gesturing to the thread as a whole would be the right way to respond.

[cricket]

What the f*ck am I reading in this thread. This is embarrassing for this site.

But what is it that you disagree with? Everyone thinks the cop should be behind bars, but not everyone is going to think exactly the exact same way about the details, nor should they depending on their past experience.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Then call it out, specifically. Oblique references aren't actionable, assuming there actually is something here that rises to the level of overt hate speech, which is what it would take for me to be "embarrassed." And if there is something like that, reporting it rather than gesturing to the thread as a whole would be the right way to respond.

My bad, I thought throwing people into a canyon of fire was bad, guess not.

Or someones favourite video was of a person being shot.

Or finding enjoyment over people being beaten. :rolleyes:

[cricket]

My bad, I thought throwing people into a canyon of fire was bad, guess not.

Or someones favourite video was of a person being shot.

Or finding enjoyment over people being beaten. :rolleyes:

Sorry, I don't like looters, rioters, and murderers.

[Yoda]

My bad, I thought throwing people into a canyon of fire was bad, guess not.
Nah, that's bad. Hyperbole and euphemisms are a little less bad, though.

Or someones favourite video was of a person being shot.
See above. A little glib, maybe, but that was about someone who had a random violent person come at them with a crowbar.

I mean, I thought burning buildings and endangering people was bad, too. If someone says they support the protests, should I take them to be indifferent to that? Or is the situation kind of complicated?

Regardless, your sarcasm is out of place, because I was not challenging you to find objectionable things: I was literally asking you to specify what you were talking about, since you basically gestured to something like four pages of posts and I have no idea which things you were even thinking of.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Sorry, I don't like looters, rioters, and murderers.

You seem to defend the cop enough.

[cricket]

You seem to defend the cop enough.

The one I said was evil and should be in prison? That's not much of a defense.

[TheUsualSuspect]

The one I said was evil and should be in prison? That's not much of a defense.

Better than burning and shooting others.

Maybe not defend so much as...sympathize? Your posts are all about....but what about white people. Is that really what you want to add to this?

CR claiming All Lives Matter....yeah, no sh*t. No one is saying otherwise. (https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a27075028/black-lives-matter-explained/)

[cricket]

Better than burning and shooting others.

There is a little bit of sarcasm there. I had a wee bit of sympathy for the surviving Boston marathon bomber. Think of that what you may.

Maybe not defend so much as...sympathize? Your posts are all about....but what about white people. Is that really what you want to add to this?

If you really understand what I've said, it has nothing to do with white people. My problems are with how things are portrayed and perceived. I don't care about white people any more than anyone else.

[TheUsualSuspect]

There is a little bit of sarcasm there. I had a wee bit of sympathy for the surviving Boston marathon bomber. Think of that what you may.



If you really understand what I've said, it has nothing to do with white people. My problems are with how things are portrayed and perceived. I don't care about white people any more than anyone else.

That's not how it is coming across, at least not to me.

[cricket]

That's not how it is coming across, at least not to me.

It's not coming across that way to some, unfortunately, but then I don't know how much those some are trying to understand. The people who disagree haven't been very keen on explanation in general.

[cricket]

For example, I asked you something about black privilege and you just dismissed it as if I were being racist or silly, but there was a genuine question there.

[TheUsualSuspect]

For example, I asked you something about black privilege and you just dismissed it as if I were being racist or silly, but there was a genuine question there.

I guess I missed where you asked me that or when I called you a racist, I don't think I ever did.

What was the question? Does it exist?

[cricket]

I guess I missed where you asked me that or when I called you a racist, I don't think I ever did.

What was the question? Does it exist?

No you didn't call me one thankfully.

So you know I disagree with the term white privilege. As I said your example, I don't see how they're privileges at all. That's a fundamental difference.

The other part of it is that I don't think it's right to judge or generalize by skin color, since that's the whole issue in the first place. I see it as repeating bad behavior. Taking out the fundamental issue I have, if you think it is perfectly acceptable to generalize with "white privilege", then is it perfectly acceptable to generalize with "black privilege" or black anything?

[cricket]

See my problem is not about white or black, it's about people using white or black.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Would you say that White Privilege would be better described as advantages gained by whites through historical disenfranchisement of non-whites? Is the word Privilege what is bothering you? You think everyone should have the basic right to go into a store and not be harassed...so do I. We agree on that. But not everyone has that RIGHT/PRIVILEGE. We live in a world where everything isn't sunshine and rainbows. I think it's a weird way to look at a situation where one could say "Oh, that shouldn't be happening, so it's not considered a privilege." Reality is different. Reality makes a person's rights...a privilege. It's sh*tty, I know. We are in agreement with what should be done, we are in disagreement with how to view it apparently.

You say if anything then my friend was under privileged. So Black's are under privileged? Does that make it any better?

[TheUsualSuspect]

It's 1 in the morning here man and I got screaming baby whose teething. So I'm calling it a night.

Take care.

[Citizen Rules]

Better than burning and shooting others.

Maybe not defend so much as...sympathize? Your posts are all about....but what about white people. Is that really what you want to add to this?

CR claiming All Lives Matter....yeah, no sh*t. No one is saying otherwise. (https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a27075028/black-lives-matter-explained/)

I'll stop saying All Lives Matter when everyone else stops saying the ridiculous, inaccurate and race bating term: White Privilege, which should be called instead, Economic Discrepancy.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I'll stop saying All Lives Matter when everyone else stops saying the ridiculous, inaccurate and race bating term: White Privilege, which should be called instead, Economic Discrepancy.


Ah, so you're saying it because you want to piss people off because you're so offended by two words.


People are dying...but hey, those two words make you feel upset. Boo f*cking hoo.

[Yoda]

How is "people are dying" a response, unless you think the phrase "white privilege" stops people from dying? Otherwise, it's the equivalent of "yeah yeah you got robbed, but people get murdered, boo hoo."

You can argue with the idea, but it's not an argument to say "larger problems exist." If it was, we'd only ever talk about the worst problems in the world. Which means we wouldn't talk about all the subtler forms of racism, either. Which means when you gave your example about your friend in the store, somebody could've dumped on that, too, simply because it pales in comparison to larger forms of racism, yeah?

[cricket]

Would you say that White Privilege would be better described as advantages gained by whites through historical disenfranchisement of non-whites? Is the word Privilege what is bothering you? You think everyone should have the basic right to go into a store and not be harassed...so do I. We agree on that. But not everyone has that RIGHT/PRIVILEGE. We live in a world where everything isn't sunshine and rainbows. I think it's a weird way to look at a situation where one could say "Oh, that shouldn't be happening, so it's not considered a privilege." Reality is different. Reality makes a person's rights...a privilege. It's sh*tty, I know. We are in agreement with what should be done, we are in disagreement with how to view it apparently.

You say if anything then my friend was under privileged. So Black's are under privileged? Does that make it any better?

I'm going to tell you a true story about racism. For many years I worked with girls who were in the sex industry, not streetwalkers, but escorts. I would estimate that I worked with 150 girls. Out of those 150, about half, say 75, would not see black men. Knowing just that, you'd say that those 75 are racist, but there's usually more to it than that. Out of the 75 girls who would not see black men, about 45 of them had black men (pimps). I word it that way because these girls, although thinking of it as a loving relationship, don't call these pimps their boyfriends, but rather "my man". So it looks strange that these girls will not see black men even though they're with black men, right? Well the order that they cannot see black men, is in fact coming from their black pimps. Then these black pimps will make a move on another white girl and get turned down, and they will call the white girl racist not realizing the order is coming from someone doing the same thing he's doing. Out of the other 30 girls who won't see black men, 20 of them are black. The remaining 10 will say they're just being cautious, but there's often wiggle room. I found a lot of this fascinating and used to talk to them about it. I would ask if they'd rather see a white punk from Charlestown or a professional black man at the 4 Seasons. Of course they say the black man so I would say well ok then race is not really the issue. In my experience, the people who are most mistrustful of people of color are other people of color. That's because they are around the crime every day. Out of the 150 girls, there was only one that stood out as being racist because I saw her call a couple of black men racial slurs. The weird part about it is that she was one of the girls who had no problem seeing black men, and in fact had many black friends. Take an incident like George Floyd's, a lot of these guys don't care that he was killed and don't care that he was killed by a cop. They care that he was killed by a white man, not because they think the white man was racist, but because they are racist and take it as a sign of disrespect. They don't like white men or women of any color doing what they're doing to make money. The moral of this story is that not everything is cut and dry. None of these girls wanted to see Indian men because they were thought of as cheap. This Chinese girl who owned a busy escort agency always used to say she was going out for "chink food". My wife is a clinician, and when she came home from work yesterday, she told me one of her clients who hates Trump because he thinks he's racist, was using the N word. These things are far from simple, so when I see the John McClanes of the world posting their racist checklist and other people claiming racism with zero evidence or people overusing and cheapening the word, I can't help but think they are clueless.

I like to think of racism in the traditional sense as hating or thinking superiority due to skin color. Judging people is wrong, but unfortunately unavoidable and we all do it. In your experiment you walked into a store with a black friend and he was looked at more suspiciously than you. You can't ignore statistics or deny human nature. It doesn't make the clerk racist and it wouldn't matter what color the clerk is. It's kind of like pitbulls. They are mostly loving creatures but are judged because of a few bad incidents. The crime rate in the black community cannot be overlooked. It's everything. That doesn't mean you blame the black community, it just means having understanding on all sides. If there were only white people, there would still be judgement and bias. Are you poor, overweight, have tattoos, a shaved head, are you fugly, or does your mama dress you funny. We are judged by our friends, family, and employers, and we are judged walking down the street by strangers. And in return we judge them. Two white men walk into a store, one with a suit and one with tattered clothes. You will watch one more closely. I walk into a BMW dealership at the same time as a black man with a suit. The salesmen are fighting to get to him first.

I was critical of Colin Kaepernick back when he made news, maybe a little too harshly, but you know what I would like to see? I would like to see a black man assaulted by a cop, with evidence that the cop is racist, but with no evidence that the assault itself was racially motivated. I would then like to see the black victim say that race wasn't the problem, that the real problem was the unnecessary assault and that it happens far too much to people of all colors. This is a leader and a man I'd vote for as president. We all know racism is an issue, but we need strength to overcome. You are not helping people by making them out to be victims. Instead of telling the black community that the white man is holding them down, and that they are victims of racism and history, you tell them what I used to tell a lot of those girls I worked with who felt trapped, which worked-you are strong, you are in charge of your life, and you can succeed! You build them up! That's part of the problem with this whole white privilege idea, and an idea is all it is. Who is it helping? Two of the biggest proponents of white privilege as far as I've seen; one is Kamala Harris who put countless black men in prison for nonviolent marijuana offenses. Then the man she calls racist, Trump, enacts prison reform which enables black men to go home and teach their children not to make the same mistakes that they made. Then you have Elizabeth Warren, who has such white privilege, that she had to claim she was another race to move up in the world. It's unbelievable that people fall for this crap. The white privilege crowd, and BLM, doesn't give a crap about the thousands of blacks who are victims of violent crime every year, and they don't give a crap about George Floyd. They only care about the opportunity that the George Floyd incident gave them; now I can stand up, scream injustice, make myself feel worthwhile, and impress the people around me. Where were you before? In my experience, there are many black people who don't need or want your support, and are even insulted by it. They don't want to be called victims anymore. They just want to be people like anyone else.

https://youtu.be/yotpernUgAo

[TheUsualSuspect]

How is "people are dying" a response, unless you think the phrase "white privilege" stops people from dying? Otherwise, it's the equivalent of "yeah yeah you got robbed, but people get murdered, boo hoo."

You can argue with the idea, but it's not an argument to say "larger problems exist." If it was, we'd only ever talk about the worst problems in the world. Which means we wouldn't talk about all the subtler forms of racism, either. Which means when you gave your example about your friend in the store, somebody could've dumped on that, too, simply because it pales in comparison to larger forms of racism, yeah?


People are dying is in reference to the term Black Lives Matter. Which CR goes out of his way marginalize.

[Yoda]

People are dying is in reference to the term Black Lives Matter. Which CR goes out of his way marginalize.
I'm not sure how that changes the logic, though? The process seems to be this:

1. People are dying and something must be done (so far, so good).
2. I'm going to say "Black Lives Matter" in response (a slogan to encapsulate the problem).
3. If someone objects to "Black Lives Matter" I'll refer them back to "people are dying."

The jump takes place in #3. If your response to CR not liking BLM is "people are dying," you're implying that the phrase helps stop that. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't, but just because it's a response to the problem does not make it synonymous with the problem, so that anyone who objects to it is denying there's a problem or belittling the idea. And that's the only thing you could think that would make "people are dying" a meaningful response here.

The same logic applies to other issues where I will assume you were (and are) on the other side of the issue: imagine if you objected to the curtailment of liberties in the Patriot Act and someone just yelled "THREE THOUSAND AMERICANS DIED." You'd rightly say "yes, and I think that's awful, but that does not obligate me to support any response to it." Same idea here.

[Yoda]

I'll preemptively add that arguing CR's complaint is unimportant in the current context is potentially reasonable, at least. But I would then refer back to the earlier post about using big problems as a reason to ignore small to moderate ones, and how untenable that standard quickly becomes. It's also tricky to argue that the slogan is important enough to be worth saying and amplifying, but not important enough to object to.

[Yoda]

I guess, in general, I'd really like to see people be able to talk about this, and it's really obvious right now that a few of you feel like arguing about any aspect of this issue is arguing about racism itself. That's the only way I can make sense of people's total disdain and utter disbelief.

I think, if you see people you generally like and respect suggesting things you find totally unconscionable, that's a good reason to examine whether or not you're on the same page, because a misunderstanding (or unconscious conflation of issues, as I suggested above) is a lot more likely than "person I usually like and respect turns out to be a horrible human being."

[Citizen Rules]

I'm going to tell you a true story about racism. For many years I worked with girls who were in the sex industry, not streetwalkers, but escorts. I would estimate that I worked with 150 girls. Out of those 150, about half, say 75, would not see black men. Knowing just that, you'd say that those 75 are racist, but there's usually more to it than that. Out of the 75 girls who would not see black men, about 45 of them had black men (pimps). I word it that way because these girls, although thinking of it as a loving relationship, don't call these pimps their boyfriends, but rather "my man". So it looks strange that these girls will not see black men even though they're with black men, right? Well the order that they cannot see black men, is in fact coming from their black pimps. Then these black pimps will make a move on another white girl and get turned down, and they will call the white girl racist not realizing the order is coming from someone doing the same thing he's doing. Out of the other 30 girls who won't see black men, 20 of them are black. The remaining 10 will say they're just being cautious, but there's often wiggle room. I found a lot of this fascinating and used to talk to them about it. I would ask if they'd rather see a white punk from Charlestown or a professional black man at the 4 Seasons. Of course they say the black man so I would say well ok then race is not really the issue. In my experience, the people who are most mistrustful of people of color are other people of color. That's because they are around the crime every day. Out of the 150 girls, there was only one that stood out as being racist because I saw her call a couple of black men racial slurs. The weird part about it is that she was one of the girls who had no problem seeing black men, and in fact had many black friends. Take an incident like George Floyd's, a lot of these guys don't care that he was killed and don't care that he was killed by a cop. They care that he was killed by a white man, not because they think the white man was racist, but because they are racist and take it as a sign of disrespect. They don't like white men or women of any color doing what they're doing to make money. The moral of this story is that not everything is cut and dry. None of these girls wanted to see Indian men because they were thought of as cheap. This Chinese girl who owned a busy escort agency always used to say she was going out for "chink food". My wife is a clinician, and when she came home from work yesterday, she told me one of her clients who hates Trump because he thinks he's racist, was using the N word. These things are far from simple, so when I see the John McClanes of the world posting their racist checklist and other people claiming racism with zero evidence or people overusing and cheapening the word, I can't help but think they are clueless.

I like to think of racism in the traditional sense as hating or thinking superiority due to skin color. Judging people is wrong, but unfortunately unavoidable and we all do it. In your experiment you walked into a store with a black friend and he was looked at more suspiciously than you. You can't ignore statistics or deny human nature. It doesn't make the clerk racist and it wouldn't matter what color the clerk is. It's kind of like pitbulls. They are mostly loving creatures but are judged because of a few bad incidents. The crime rate in the black community cannot be overlooked. It's everything. That doesn't mean you blame the black community, it just means having understanding on all sides. If there were only white people, there would still be judgement and bias. Are you poor, overweight, have tattoos, a shaved head, are you fugly, or does your mama dress you funny. We are judged by our friends, family, and employers, and we are judged walking down the street by strangers. And in return we judge them. Two white men walk into a store, one with a suit and one with tattered clothes. You will watch one more closely. I walk into a BMW dealership at the same time as a black man with a suit. The salesmen are fighting to get to him first.

I was critical of Colin Kaepernick back when he made news, maybe a little too harshly, but you know what I would like to see? I would like to see a black man assaulted by a cop, with evidence that the cop is racist, but with no evidence that the assault itself was racially motivated. I would then like to see the black victim say that race wasn't the problem, that the real problem was the unnecessary assault and that it happens far too much to people of all colors. This is a leader and a man I'd vote for as president. We all know racism is an issue, but we need strength to overcome. You are not helping people by making them out to be victims. Instead of telling the black community that the white man is holding them down, and that they are victims of racism and history, you tell them what I used to tell a lot of those girls I worked with who felt trapped, which worked-you are strong, you are in charge of your life, and you can succeed! You build them up! That's part of the problem with this whole white privilege idea, and an idea is all it is. Who is it helping? Two of the biggest proponents of white privilege as far as I've seen; one is Kamala Harris who put countless black men in prison for nonviolent marijuana offenses. Then the man she calls racist, Trump, enacts prison reform which enables black men to go home and teach their children not to make the same mistakes that they made. Then you have Elizabeth Warren, who has such white privilege, that she had to claim she was another race to move up in the world. It's unbelievable that people fall for this crap. The white privilege crowd, and BLM, doesn't give a crap about the thousands of blacks who are victims of violent crime every year, and they don't give a crap about George Floyd. They only care about the opportunity that the George Floyd incident gave them; now I can stand up, scream injustice, make myself feel worthwhile, and impress the people around me. Where were you before? In my experience, there are many black people who don't need or want your support, and are even insulted by it. They don't want to be called victims anymore. They just want to be people like anyone else.
It took guts to write all that and you said a whole lot of truths there that I had been thinking about. I like how you said it in a clear, simple matter of fact way, that makes sense. Lately with all the protest, riots, charges of white privilege and claims of institutionalized racism, I've been thinking of the story The Emperor's New Clothes
two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that they say is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent – while in reality, they make no clothes at all, making everyone believe the clothes are invisible to them. When the emperor parades before his subjects in his new "clothes", no one dares to say that they do not see any suit of clothes on him for fear that they will be seen as stupid. Finally a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!" That's exactly what's happening today. We all know racism is wrong, but institutionalized racism was defeated decades ago. Nowadays colleges and job hiring have to take a number of minorities even if their qualifications are lower, thanks to Affirmative Action. The playing field has more than been equalized and everyone has the same chances. And if a black man and a white man of equal education and skill apply for the same job the black man has an advantage thanks to Affirmative Action laws...And yet people are complaining more than ever that whites are privileged and that racism is rampant.
Take an incident like George Floyd's, a lot of these guys don't care that he was killed and don't care that he was killed by a cop. They care that he was killed by a white man, not because they think the white man was racist, but because they are racist and take it as a sign of disrespect.Agreed. The thing is people can't say that these days or we're going to upset those who believe the emperor's new clothes are real clothes, so it never gets said. It's like being in high school and not wearing the same brand of jeans as everyone else, then the everyone else gets upset when someone doesn't follow the herd....You are right, the whole respect/disrespect thing is a big part of urban black culture. It's why black suspects often flee from cops and resist arrest, all to prove their man hood. Of course if the four cops involved in the George Floyd killing were black cops, NONE of us would be talking about it...and that's racist because like you said, we only care that a white man killed a black man, when the real important issue is that cops used excessive force killing a suspect and that should concern everyone.

[John McClane]

I am going to chalk a lot of what is being said in here to basic ignorance. I have to realize that I come from a region and city that has a deep racial divide, so when I hear the same stuff repeated here that has fueled that divide I have no patience for it and my behavior reflects it.

Furthermore, I work at a place that has a long history of racism and the things being repeated here are littered throughout that history, and I've chosen not to be tone deaf when a whole community tells me their lived experiences and the pain they continue to feel. I've learned more in the past year from listening to the students here than all my years of schooling combined.

I wish we all had the stomach to say that politics has no place here and that it doesn't further genuine discussions.

[TheUsualSuspect]

It took guts to write all that and you said a whole lot of truths there that I had been thinking about. I like how you said it in a clear, simple matter of fact way, that makes sense. Lately with all the protest, riots, charges of white privilege and claims of institutionalized racism, I've been thinking of the story The Emperor's New Clothes
That's exactly what's happening today. We all know racism is wrong, but institutionalized racism was defeated decades ago. Nowadays colleges and job hiring have to take a number of minorities even if their qualifications are lower, thanks to Affirmative Action. The playing field has more than been equalized and everyone has the same chances. And if a black man and a white man of equal education and skill apply for the same job the black man has an advantage thanks to Affirmative Action laws...And yet people are complaining more than ever that whites are privileged and that racism is rampant.


A lot of assumption to assume a Black man has the advantage, especially after saying it's a level playing field. Is it or isn't it?



Agreed. The thing is people can't say that these days or we're going to upset those who believe the emperor's new clothes are real clothes, so it never gets said. It's like being in high school and not wearing the same brand of jeans as everyone else, then the everyone else gets upset when someone doesn't follow the herd....You are right, the whole respect/disrespect thing is a big part of urban black culture. It's why black suspects often flee from cops and resist arrest, all to prove their man hood. Of course if the four cops involved in the George Floyd killing were black cops, NONE of us would be talking about it...and that's racist because like you said, we only care that a white man killed a black man, when the real important issue is that cops used excessive force killing a suspect and that should concern everyone.


More assumptions. Would there be riots? Probably not. Protests? Yes. To the degree we are seeing? Probably not. To say no one would be talking about an officer killing a man by placing their knee on the back of their neck while he pleaded for his life is discouraging. You have no idea, don't assume you do. You're making judgements based on colour, are we not supposed to do that? That's what everyone's been saying in here.


The main issues I've been seeing are all about excessive force used by cops, especially with how they are treating the protestors.


To say Black men flee from cops to look tough is an insult and disrespectful. Again, you have ZERO clue and are making false assumptions based on....what? Stereotypes?

[TheUsualSuspect]

https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/gyzfaq/police_last_week_tonight_with_john_oliver_hbo/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share




Whether you agree with him or not John Oliver just did an episode on Police.




YouTube video isn't available in Canafa, so linking a reddit thread instead.

[Citizen Rules]

A lot of assumption to assume a Black man has the advantage, especially after saying it's a level playing field. Is it or isn't it? Black Americans have an equal advantage chance, not a lesser advantage as proponents of White Privilege claim.

In the case of college admissions and jobs where Affirmative Action is in place, they have a greater advantage, than whites of the same education and skill levels do. That's a fact.

Now...you prove the opposite (and without name calling.)
You've been asked to prove your claims that blacks are at a disadvantage and whites have a privilege, but so far all you've done is to curse at people and curse this site.

[Yoda]

I think we have to allow for disadvantages that aren't quantifiable. There seems to be enough anecdotal evidence of that to conclude something's up there, even if we can't quite prove it or measure it properly.

I think the tougher questions are twofold:

1) Separating race from economics, since a lot of race-based differences are more simply and plausibly explained by financial differences.

2) Lagging indicators. As mentioned above, even if things were magically and perfectly equal right now, that would not counteract the many decades "head start" that past generations give us. Now, sometimes this isn't the case, from families that immigrated not too long ago, and I'd love to see that acknowledged a bit more, since just saying "white people" ignores that lots of white people's grandparents started with nothing (and crass generalizations like that are pretty much always bad). But in many cases people have some degree of intergenerational-wealth, however modest, that provides an advantage, and that would be true even if things were equal now/going forward.

[Yoda]

That last point seems particularly important because it actually describes a situation where nobody's quite wrong, because it can be simultaneously true that things are increasingly equitable and that massive disparities still exist.

[cricket]

In my personal experiences, I have seen a higher likelihood of racism coming from blacks rather than whites. Lets say hypothetically that this is true across the nation; that doesn't mean that racism affects whites more than blacks. Quite the contrary given the population difference. It is a factor.

[John McClane]

1) Separating race from economics, since a lot of race-based differences are more simply and plausibly explained by financial differences.I just can't agree with this when economics was used to displace and destroy minority communities. It's tantamount to ignoring the issue.

History clearly shows us that race and economics are more tightly woven in America than conservative pundits would like us to believe.

But if we really want to examine the rest of your post we'd also find the second point lacking. Take the Hmong community for instance. Immigrant families placed in affordable housing (i.e. the slums) during the 70-80s and, to this day, they are dealing with the same issues as African Americans.

The idea of equality through economics/capitalism is a lie spread by people with established generational wealth or acquired wealth through unfair lending practices.

[doubledenim]

I know I have trouble seeing the nuance in this stuff.

I don’t agree with a lot of people getting carte blanche to say whatever they want (telling people to shut up, not your time to talk) but I know there is a lot of pain behind it. I can accept that.

I don’t agree with the rioting on the surface, but that is what we do in America. Nobody is going back and judging the merits of the Boston Tea Party.

[Yoda]

First off, a big ol' :up: to my friend MattJohn for the post. I appreciate the substance very much. I know this is hard for everyone to talk about sometimes, too. I hope we can all keep that in mind. Onward:

I just can't agree with this when economics was used to displace and destroy minority communities. It's tantamount to ignoring the issue.

History clearly shows us that race and economics are more tightly woven in America than conservative pundits would like us to believe.
Kinda confused, because the first paragraph is phrased as disagreement, but the second paragraph is what I'm saying, too. I am explicitly arguing that they're interwoven, which is why people end up talking past each other so easily when the word "racist" comes out: because one side thinks it means "is explicitly and currently prejudiced against minorities" and the other thinks it means "anything which disadvantages minorities, past or present."

So, you might say "the banking system is racist" and maybe cricket goes "that's absurd" because he thinks you're saying bank tellers hate black people, or something.

But if we really want to examine the rest of your post we'd also find the second point lacking. Take the Hmong community for instance. Immigrant families placed in affordable housing (i.e. the slums) during the 70-80s and, to this day, they are dealing with the same issues as African Americans.
I honestly don't know how this undermines the second point. Which, to reiterate, is that white people have more intergenerational wealth than minorities in aggregate, but lots of individual people/families came here recently and do not. As is often noted, Italians, Irish, and other less-favored European nationalities were treated with disdain by other nationalities (or just families that had been here longer) as recently as last century, and obviously the grandchildren of those people are in a very different position re: wealth than a lot of others.

People almost universally resent being grouped together based on things they can't control, and that includes white people who get grouped in with the country club Anglophile set when their grandfather was a Polish coal miner or something.

The idea of equality through economics/capitalism is a lie spread by people with established generational wealth or acquired wealth through unfair lending practices.
Oh boy, I really wanna unpack "unfair lending practices" because most of the complaints there are mutually exclusive (like "redlining" in one direction and "predatory lending" in the other, so that both granting loans and denying them become evidence of racism). But that's a little outside of the scope here, and probably not necessary to hash out given the stuff above, because I'm not sure we actually disagree on the link between economics and race. Just between economics and racism.

[Citizen Rules]

.....But in many cases people have some degree of intergenerational-wealth, however modest, that provides an advantage, and that would be true even if things were equal now/going forward. I acknowledge that black Americans have the lingering economic hardship caused by centuries of slavery, Jim Crow laws and institutionalized discrimination.

I learned in Jr. High history class how after slavery ended, blacks still remained literally 'enslaved' by Jim Crow laws in the south and were forced by law and lack of opportunity to be sharecroppers...where they worked hard but didn't even own their own land. Sharecropping was just a legal form of slavery after the Civil War.

As a response to the wretched conditions in the south, millions of blacks in the 20th century moved to the larger industrialized cities like Detroit and Chicago seeking a better life and a chance to make a living. Only to find they were paid pennies on the dollar and were denied a chance to have good paying jobs.

All of that has lead to many blacks living in poverty in large cities. So yes I fully agree that past racism and discrimination has lead to the current situation of many blacks having less...But those historical factors don't equate to modern day whites being responsible for past 'sins'...though all people of good heart should strive to make America and the world a better place to live in by reducing poverty and it's negative effects.

[John McClane]

I think, now that I understand what you're trying to argue, a more compelling way to frame the issue is through societal expectations, but even those are fraught with racially based undertones.

I'll address this further when I get back. I gotta go hang an access point.

The key point to take away from this whole discussion is that people's reactions to the words racist/racism are a measured response of the life they have lived. Those reactions are far more telling about a person's motives and agenda.

EDIT: Also, I think the idea that anyone here, especially if they are white, is going to have the answers to fix the issues with disenfranchises communities is quite laughable. It has to come from them and, for better or worse, we are witnessing that at this very moment. That's precisely why I don't have patience for most of the stuff being said because it's basically discrediting a rights movement.

[Yoda]

Yeah, no rush, I think we're probably mostly in agreement but it's worth hashing out. I very much agree that people are reacting to these words differently, both because they mean different things to them and because it's gonna be hard to swallow anything that doesn't jibe with our lived experience, for better or worse.

[TheUsualSuspect]

In my personal experiences, I have seen a higher likelihood of racism coming from blacks rather than whites.

And in my experiences, it is the opposite. Discrimination is across the board, not specialized to one race, this is true and I highly doubt anyone would argue otherwise.

[cricket]

And in my experiences, it is the opposite. Discrimination is across the board, not specialized to one race, this is true and I highly doubt anyone would argue otherwise.

Yes, but that sentence you quoted makes it look like something else without the sentence that came after. The two together and I think we're even more in agreement.

[pahaK]

The idea of equality through economics/capitalism is a lie spread by people with established generational wealth or acquired wealth through unfair lending practices.

This is something I can agree with. This doesn't mean that I think something like communism (or anarchy, for god's sake) would be a solution. To me, both capitalism and socialism are philosophical ideas or thought constructs that have no place in the real world. And just like with religions, people are ruining the world by following these dogmas to the letter. The state should exist for the people, to provide security while trying to minimize its control. A good economical system would have concepts from both capitalism and socialism.

I just completely disagree with the idea that all these social issues are turned into racial ones. I'm not American so I don't know how things really are there (I know the statistics, though, and they don't seem to support BLM claims), but these riots and movements are spilling into Europe too. It's all political and the people pulling the strings don't care about George Floyd, Derek Chauvin, you, or me. They care about money and power. The rioters on the streets are pawns in their games.

As an example, rioting against police shootings in Finland is insane. There's a year old article in one of our newspapers that says that during this century police have shot 9 people (one of those is an accident in training) and if memory serves me right, only one of those 9 was non-white (a Somali immigrant who had killed two people with an ax, tried to kill 3rd, and attacked the police with the same ax).

I'm really sad about the state of the world and naturally, my concerns are more directed towards my home. I fear Europe is moving towards Orwellian nightmare or a civil war (and who knows what that would lead to).

[TheUsualSuspect]

Black Americans have an equal advantage chance, not a lesser advantage as proponents of White Privilege claim.

In the case of college admissions and jobs where Affirmative Action is in place, they have a greater advantage, than whites of the same education and skill levels do. That's a fact.

Now...you prove the opposite (and without name calling.)
You've been asked to prove your claims that blacks are at a disadvantage and whites have a privilege, but so far all you've done is to curse at people and curse this site.

You have yet to prove anything, but okay.

I have not called anyone a name in this entire thread. Please don't throw that assumption out there, it's inappropriate.

I've shown personal experience as proof. Cricket doesn't accept it, doesn't make it ANY LESS TRUE. If I can't change your mind with real world experience, how the hell am I supposed to with numbers from a website? I guess White Privilege is a perceived notion. I see it, you don't. I apparently can't change your thought process and you won't change mine.

Black men at disadvantage. (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/black-men-face-economic-disadvantages-even-if-they-start-out-in-wealthier-households-new-study-shows)

In New York City, 88% of police stops in 2018 involved Black and Latino people, while 10% involved white people. (Of those stops, 70% were completely innocent.)
-New York Civil Liberties Union.

In one US survey, 15.8% of students reported experiencing race-based bullying or harassment. Research has found significant associations between racial bullying and negative mental and physical health in students
-Adolescent Health and Harassment Based on Discriminatory Bias.

From 2013 to 2017, white patients in the US received better quality health care than about 34% of Hispanic patients, 40% of Black patients, and 40% of Native American patients.
-National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report.”

Black Americans are more likely than white Americans to be arrested. Once arrested, they are more likely to be convicted, and once convicted, they are more likely to experience lengthy prison sentences.
-Report to the United Nations on Racial Disparities in the U.S. Criminal Justice System.

Black Americans and white Americans use drugs at similar rates, but Black Americans are 6 times more likely to be arrested for it
-NAACP. Criminal Justice Fact Sheet.

On average, Black men in the US receive sentences that are 19.1% longer than those of white men convicted for the same crimes.
-US Sentencing Commission.

In the US, Black workers are less likely than white workers to be employed in a job that is consistent with their level of education
-Economic Policy Institute.

Here are some percentages on what people think in America (https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/04/09/views-of-racial-inequality/).


For the record, I'm in now way calling you or Cricket racist. I want that to be abundantly clear. I apologize if that is how my current state is coming off to you.

[cricket]

I would never discount^^your personal experience, sorry if it ever came off that way.

Let's assume that those statistics are true, which I wouldn't but I also wouldn't discount, my question is why?

[cricket]

For instance, more likely to be arrested is directly tied to more likely to commit crime. More likely to have a longer prison sentence can be tied to more likely to have a prior.

[TheUsualSuspect]

For instance, more likely to be arrested is directly tied to more likely to commit crime. More likely to have a longer prison sentence can be tied to more likely to have a prior.

What does more likely to commit a crime entail?

[cricket]

What does more likely to commit a crime entail?

Not remembering the exact numbers, but isn't something like 6% of the population responsible for like 40% of the crime?

[TheUsualSuspect]

Not remembering the exact numbers, but isn't something like 6% of the population responsible for like 40% of the crime?

Let's assume that those statistics are true, which I wouldn't but I also wouldn't discount, my question is why?

[cricket]

Let's assume that those statistics are true, which I wouldn't but I also wouldn't discount, my question is why?

Actually I just looked it up and it's worse than that, but why is also my question. I think much of the blame belongs to whites for sins of the past. However, white people alone can't solve it which is why I say we all need to work together. I like prison reform better than affirmative action. I understand affirmative action but any time it's directly tied to race, it's not optimal. Prison reform is not race related in policy, yet it disproportionately helps black men who need it most. I think we need more policys that incentivize men to be fathers, graduate high school, etc.

[John McClane]

First off, a big ol' :up: to my friend MattJohn for the post. I appreciate the substance very much. I know this is hard for everyone to talk about sometimes, too. I hope we can all keep that in mind. Onward:We shouldn't even have threads like this here, but that's another talk for another time.


I am explicitly arguing that they're interwoven, which is why people end up talking past each other so easily when the word "racist" comes out: because one side thinks it means "is explicitly and currently prejudiced against minorities" and the other thinks it means "anything which disadvantages minorities, past or present."

So, you might say "the banking system is racist" and maybe cricket goes "that's absurd" because he thinks you're saying bank tellers hate black people, or something.True, but the fact that they are interwoven means that any argument that advances the idea that race is not a contributing factor and that economics is a primary deciding factor is folly, and it doesn't negate the fact that the bank system is racist. How we feel about words and the way they are used does not change facts. And this is precisely my point: that racial biases are interwoven into every aspect of American society. One cannot argue, from any angle, that another factor is responsible for the disadvantages because to do so is to equate that race is not responsible. When two things are so interwoven that you can't point to where they begin and end then you cannot claim or argue that one of those factors does NOT play a part in the workings of that system.

Chick-fil-A is a business that is interwoven with religion, so I can't argue that them being closed on Sunday is a sign of their success. To do so is to negate the significance of a deciding factor in their business operations.


I honestly don't know how this undermines the second point. Which, to reiterate, is that white people have more intergenerational wealth than minorities in aggregate, but lots of individual people/families came here recently and do not. As is often noted, Italians, Irish, and other less-favored European nationalities were treated with disdain by other nationalities (or just families that had been here longer) as recently as last century, and obviously the grandchildren of those people are in a very different position re: wealth than a lot of others.

People almost universally resent being grouped together based on things they can't control, and that includes white people who get grouped in with the country club Anglophile set when their grandfather was a Polish coal miner or something.There's a big difference between a community that freely immigrants and a community that was built on a lack of suffrage and the imprisonment of their ancestors. It's an unfair, and rather grotesque, comparison of lived experiences. One group had the empowerment of choice whilst another group was disempowered through their lack of choice.

People universally reset being told where to live, how to live, etc, etc.


Oh boy, I really wanna unpack "unfair lending practices" because most of the complaints there are mutually exclusive (like "redlining" in one direction and "predatory lending" in the other, so that both granting loans and denying them become evidence of racism). But that's a little outside of the scope here, and probably not necessary to hash out given the stuff above, because I'm not sure we actually disagree on the link between economics and race. Just between economics and racism.Ah, but unpacking it would show the economics of racism. It's not a matter of economics and racism being linked. It's a matter of historical records showing us how economics was used to further racism.

TL; DR: Apples to oranges.

I think a lot of people in here are forgetting that America was built on slavery. BUILT ON and not beside. You are going to be hard pressed to find a sector of society that has not been influenced by that history, and this is why race is brought into so many current discussions about society. It's also why a lot of those same systems are, and have been, racist.

[Yoda]

We shouldn't even have threads like this here, but that's another talk for another time.
A reasonable position, and one I'm actively considering. I'd rather do it in a time between social controversies, but as you say, for another time.

And this is precisely my point: that racial biases are interwoven into every aspect of American society. One cannot argue, from any angle, that another factor is responsible for the disadvantages because to do so is to equate that race is not responsible. When two things are so interwoven that you can't point to where they begin and end then you cannot claim or argue that one of those factors does NOT play a part in the workings of that system.
When someone says it's not race, it's economics, that does not mean there is no relationship between the two. As you say, they are inextricably linked. We agree there.

What it means to say "it's not race, it's economics" is that the person at the end of the process--the bank teller, the HR person deciding who to hire, whatever--is reacting to the end result, and not the skin color. And that's an important distinction! If the problem is that people throughout society are denying minorities opportunity just because they hate them, that's way different (and would require totally different solutions/policies) than if the problem is that race has left people poorer, and that that poverty has left them disadvantaged. Because that means their race is what caused the problem, but it is not inherently the problem.

That's how people end up talking past each other: because very few people see the former in the world. They just don't see an army of bank tellers and landlords out there who hate minorities and exclude them just for being a minority. So when they're told these things are "racist," they can't square it with their sense of the world, and they object. No productive communication will happen, then, unless we either find another word or at least bother to try to define our terms upfront. That might just lead to an argument about whether it's wise or fair to use such a powerful word to describe third-order effects of race, but even that terminological argument would be more productive than two people arguing about "racism" because neither is using the word the same way as the other.

There's a big difference between a community that freely immigrants and a community that was built on a lack of suffrage and the imprisonment of their ancestors. It's an unfair, and rather grotesque, comparison of lived experiences. One group had the empowerment of choice whilst another group was disempowered through their lack of choice.
I think it'd be grotesque to compare their histories as a whole, yeah. But I'm only comparing the intergenerational wealth stuff. None of this exists in a vacuum, of course.

Ah, but unpacking it would show the economics of racism.
Maybe when this dies down we can expound on it and find out. :) Definitely something I'm interested in, given that over the last few decades both one course of action and its opposite were both described as racist.

[John McClane]

When someone says it's not race, it's economics, that does not mean there is no relationship between the two. As you say, they are inextricably linked. We agree there.

What it means to say "it's not race, it's economics" is that the person at the end of the process--the bank teller, the HR person deciding who to hire, whatever--is reacting to the end result, and not the skin color. And that's an important distinction! If the problem is that people throughout society are denying minorities opportunity just because they hate them, that's way different (and would require totally different solutions/policies) than if the problem is that race has left people poorer, and that that poverty has left them disadvantaged. Because that means their race is what caused the problem, but it is not inherently the problem.Sure, you are free to think that but it fails to capture the realities of how racism was institutionalized in this country.

A community has been left poorer not because they were just neglected but because they were actively suppressed: don’t give them an education because they are too dumb, don’t give them land because they won’t know what to do with it, don’t let them move into your neighborhood because they will devalue your property, don’t give them a job because they are too lazy, don’t give them a loan because they don’t understand money, etc, etc.

We are talking 200+ years where a whole community was generalized and demonized for merely not being white. Their power was actively suppressed. This is a fact, and this is precisely why the generational wealth gap and other realities exist today.

That's how people end up talking past each other: because very few people see the former in the world. They just don't see an army of bank tellers and landlords out there who hate minorities and exclude them just for being a minority. So when they're told these things are "racist," they can't square it with their sense of the world, and they object. No productive communication will happen, then, unless we either find another word or at least bother to try to define our terms upfront. That might just lead to an argument about whether it's wise or fair to use such a powerful word to describe third-order effects of race, but even that terminological argument would be more productive than two people arguing about "racism" because neither is using the word the same way as the other.I’d argue that it is far more telling of a person if their reaction is to discredit/disagree with someone because they didn’t like the usage of a word. That line of thinking originates from a place of arrogant ignorance: “oh, that word is wrong because that’s not how it actually is in the world.” When that takes place between white people it’s an annoyance at worst but when spoken towards the community that is dealing with pain it’s equivalent to “Cowboy the **** up” or “Quit lying. You ain’t got it bad”.

As a member of a community that once actively pointed to its race as an example of superiority it is not my job to defend or refute a word because I don’t like it’s connotations. It’s my job to listen to the hurt: Actively listen.

I mean, you can see the inherent problems in a white person trying to defend against the claim of racist/racism, right? Just the mere act of refuting is an extension of the very same systems that implemented and advanced racism.

As a white person, you don’t have to accept that racism is a fact. You are free to let it go in one ear and out the other, but the moment you begin to argue back against it you have furthered the narrative of “I’m better than you because I’m white”. And this is because of the long history that white people in this country have of controlling and manipulating people that don’t look like them because white people know what’s best for the others.

[cricket]

McClane it almost feels like you're arguing with yourself because nobody said racism isn't real or a problem.

[John McClane]

I think you are still failing to see the point: if you’re white and refute claims of racism in ANY manner then that advances the racist narratives that built America.

Like I said, feel free to hear someone say something is racist and pay it no mind. That is a choice you can make.

But when you venture into “well, I don’t think that counts as racism” you have actively bought into the systems of power that have suppressed non-whites, which is tantamount to saying racism doesn’t exist.

[cricket]

I think you are still failing to see the point: if you’re white and argue against racism in ANY manner them that advances the narratives that built America.

Like I said, feel free to hear someone say something is racist and pay it no mind. That is a choice you can make.

But when you venture into “well, I don’t think that counts as racism” you have actively bought into the systems of power that have suppressed non-whites, which is tantamount to saying racism doesn’t exist.

Well there's no evidence that the Floyd incident was race related. I don't see how anyone can argue that. You're the one who believes you're so wise that you can post a racism checklist, and you don't even think it's possible to be racist against whites. The rest of us think it's more complicated.

[Siddon]

I acknowledge that black Americans have the lingering economic hardship caused by centuries of slavery, Jim Crow laws and institutionalized discrimination.

I learned in Jr. High history class how after slavery ended, blacks still remained literally 'enslaved' by Jim Crow laws in the south and were forced by law and lack of opportunity to be sharecroppers...where they worked hard but didn't even own their own land. Sharecropping was just a legal form of slavery after the Civil War.

As a response to the wretched conditions in the south, millions of blacks in the 20th century moved to the larger industrialized cities like Detroit and Chicago seeking a better life and a chance to make a living. Only to find they were paid pennies on the dollar and were denied a chance to have good paying jobs.

All of that has lead to many blacks living in poverty in large cities. So yes I fully agree that past racism and discrimination has lead to the current situation of many blacks having less...But those historical factors don't equate to modern day whites being responsible for past 'sins'...though all people of good heart should strive to make America and the world a better place to live in by reducing poverty and it's negative effects.


Plenty of sins exist in the US structure today that disproportionately affect blacks.



1. The Criminal Code in the US has been expanded partially to collect tax money from poor people. It's also been expanded to great a prison industrial complex which gives disproportional funding to communities that hold said prisoners.


2. Gerrymandering is a system of packing and stacking communities to get as much influence from white right wing politicians than left wing democrats.


3. The US election system is established to hurt poor people and people in urban areas. Poles stations are undermanned and the government does not establish election days as "holidays" so if you are working two jobs...guess you a SOL.


4. Police Officers are afforded the opportunities of excessive force even when the "crimes" are clearly misdemeanors. Also they kill dogs...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XFYTtgZAlE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRMYVFmEmx8



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fmdAS_Z6CY


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0qfGSwvCAE

[Yoda]

I have a longer response to the previous post basically done, but most of my objection can be encapsulated by just replying to this, at least for now:

I think you are still failing to see the point: if you’re white and refute claims of racism in ANY manner then that advances the racist narratives that built America.
To confirm, you think that people can say ANYTHING is racist, and if you're white, disagreeing is automatically racist?

[John McClane]

cricket: I’m not going to keep going in circles with you. The logic is faulty and is an example of the very mechanism of power I just described.

Because you see no reason that it was race related means nothing. In fact, it means you come from a place of privilege where you have the ability to ignore race as a factor and it gives you cart blache to not listen to the disenfranchised. You are essentially a product of America’s racist history.

You are a nice person, but this line of reasoning and your aversion to history is why you’re currently on my ignore list. You will just have to forgive me for not responding going forward. Hopefully, one day soon politics won’t be allowed, and I won’t have a need for the ignore list.

It’s nothing personal I just don’t see any reason to argue with someone that refuses to see that this whole country, and just about every system in it, was built on racism.

[cricket]

cricket: I’m not going to keep going in circles with you. The logic is faulty and is an example of the very mechanism of power I just described.

Because you see no reason that it was race related means nothing. In fact, it means you come from a place of privilege where you have the ability to ignore race as a factor and it gives you cart blache to not listen to the disenfranchised. You are essentially a product of America’s racist history.

You are a nice person, but this line of reasoning and your aversion to history is why you’re currently on my ignore list. You will just have to forgive me for not responding going forward. Hopefully, one day soon politics won’t be allowed, and I won’t have a need for the ignore list.

It’s nothing personal I just don’t see any reason to argue with someone that refuses to see that this whole country, and just about every system in it, was built on racism.

I know, your evidence that the incident was race related was that the store clerk called the police on him. Wonderful.

[John McClane]

To confirm, you think that people can say ANYTHING is racist, and if you're white, disagreeing is automatically racist?That is a gross simplification of my argument, but for the sake of answering your question: yes, in the same respect as merely being white is automatically racist.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Being-a-white-ally-of-African-Americans-means-15321365.php

https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/dahleen-glanton/ct-racism-white-people-george-floyd-20200531-tmdbj52ownc7fegdargh75k4qq-story.html?outputType=amp

https://www.tolerance.org/magazine/fall-2018/what-is-white-privilege-really

https://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/history-policing-united-states-part-1

[Yoda]

That is a gross simplification of my argument
It's no more simplified than the thing I was responding to. Regardless, if there is a more nuanced of the argument, I would much rather hear that before responding.

but for the sake of answering your question: yes, in the same respect as merely being white is automatically racist.
Even if I accept this premise, a question cannot be white. It can only be asked by a white person. So even if the act of asking it is "racist," the question exists on its own and therefore cannot be dismissed based on the race of the person asking it, since it could just as easily be asked by someone of another race (and sometimes, of course, it is).

So it's still there, and it still requires an answer, because that's how arguments work: they have their own merit and validity (or not!) independent of who the speaker is, as you well know.

[John McClane]

Yoda: That post makes no sense.

So try me again.

[Yoda]

I will, if you can show me which part you don't think makes sense. I can't guess which part that would be, because it seems very straightforward; I'm describing a version of the ad hominem argument.

[John McClane]

I will, if you can show me which part you don't think makes sense. I can't guess which part that would be, because it seems very straightforward; I'm describing a version of the ad hominem argument.The whole thing. That’s why I said that post. ;)

And ad hominem arguments are bad, so I hope that’s not what you’re trying to use. If you’re trying to say my argument was an ad hominem then I’ll just preface your response and say it’s not and ask you to try again at explaining whatever that last post is trying to say.

[Yoda]

The whole thing. That’s why I said that post. ;)
I very much doubt that. But even if it is, that doesn't preclude you from singling out a premise you object to or a part of the syllogism you think does not follow.

If you’re trying to say my argument was an ad hominem then I’ll just preface your response and say it’s not and ask you to try again at explaining whatever that last post is trying to say.
Okay, sure: it is ad hominem to suggest a question's validity/merit relies on the race of the speaker. Assuming you agree, that means questioning whether something is racist is valid and requires an answer, even if you regard the act of asking to be racist when coming from a white person.

[John McClane]

I very much doubt that. But even if it is, that doesn't preclude you from singling out a premise you object to or a part of the syllogism you think does not follow.I literally read it 3 times (one of those time was aloud) and didn’t understand a lick of it. Like I didn’t understand what you were arguing or what it was about because you directly quoted me just basically saying yes, so that’s why I said the whole post. Let’s not get lost in the weeds.

Okay, sure: it is ad hominem to suggest a question's validity/merit relies on the race of the speaker. Assuming you agree, that means questioning whether something is racist is valid and requires an answer, even if you regard the act of asking to be racist when coming from a white person.
Well, first, no that’s not how an ad hominem argument works.

And second, even if that’s how it worked, it still wouldn’t apply here because I clearly stated that to refute racism as a white person in America advances the racist narratives of our history, which is what automatically equates to racism. It’s history, not their race, that determines it.

And it’s not about a question being asked. It’s a matter of a white person saying something isn’t racist. That, in and of itself, is racism.

You can’t ad hominem history. Well, I suppose you can if you call someone a Nazi but I’m pretty sure that fallacy goes by another name.

[Yoda]

Well, first, no that’s not how an ad hominem argument works.
Sure it is: an ad hominem attacks the speaker and not the argument. "Asking that question is racist" is attacking the speaker and not the thing they're saying.

This seems so simple so as to be indisputable, but if you'd like to dispute it, please explain what you think an ad hominem argument is and why "your question is racist because you're white" does not qualify.

And second, even if that’s how it worked, it still wouldn’t apply here because I clearly stated that to refute racism as a white person in America advances the racist narratives of our history, which is what automatically makes it racist.
First, I don't know what "refute racism" means, but to be clear, nobody was talking about refuting the concept of racism. This was about whether someone can dispute any claim that anything is racist.

Second, why would it "advance the racist narratives" to question whether something is racist...if it isn't? Not EVERYTHING is racist, right? Therefore it is possible to say a thing is racist when it's not. And I hope we can agree that's bad. So why would it be bad to demonstrate this? It seems like the opposite--claiming a non-racist thing is racist--is the bad thing. To say nothing of the posture which makes these claims unfalsifiable, diluting even legitimate uses.

Third, even if it "advances the racist narratives," why does that matter for the purposes of evaluating the question? A question can be abused, or damaging to a cause, or have some kind of bad effect, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid question. And, in fact, if a question can have that kind of effect, it seems like all the more reason to explain how and why it's faulty.

[John McClane]

Sure it is: an ad hominem attacks the speaker and not the argument. "Asking that question is racist" is attacking the speaker and not the thing they're saying.

This seems so simple so as to be indisputable, but if you'd like to dispute it, please explain what you think an ad hominem argument is and why "your question is racist because you're white" does not qualify.I have no idea where this line of reasoning involving questions started, so I think that’s why you’re confusing me.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with asking questions. Asking questions is a good thing and cannot be racist. In fact, asking questions is what gets you answers to reveal how and why something is racist. So I’m all for questions.


First, I don't know what "refute racism" means, but to be clear, nobody was talking about refuting the concept of racism. This was about whether someone can dispute any claim that anything is racist.

Second, why would it "advance the racist narratives" to question whether something is racist...if it isn't? Not EVERYTHING is racist, right? Therefore it is possible to say a thing is racist when it's not. And I hope we can agree that's bad. So why would it be bad to demonstrate this? It seems like the opposite--claiming a non-racist thing is racist--is the bad thing. To say nothing of the posture which makes these claims unfalsifiable, diluting even legitimate uses.

Third, even if it "advances the racist narratives," why does that matter for the purposes of evaluating the question? A question can be abused, or damaging to a cause, or have some kind of bad effect, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid question. And, in fact, if a question can have that kind of effect, it seems like all the more reason to explain how and why it's faulty.Now that I know what you’re asking I can see why you were confused, so I don’t think it’s necessary to answer anything here. I’ll just clarify two things.

“How is that racist?” is a question that people can and should be asking. More people should be asking that question but, more importantly, they should be listening to the answers. Actively listening.

“There is no evidence that [insert event here] was race related” is not a question. It’s a statement. An argument.

When a white person in America makes an argument such as that in response to a minority’s claim of racism then that automatically qualifies as racism because of the current systems of power in place and the history of demonization advanced by whites.

If you’d like to continue now that I’ve clarified I’m cool with that but the argument ain’t ad hominem. However, the reversal of this same logic would equate to an ad hominem argument (i.e. “you think everything is about race because you’re black”).

[Captain Steel]

I think you are still failing to see the point: if you’re white and refute claims of racism in ANY manner then that advances the racist narratives that built America.

Like I said, feel free to hear someone say something is racist and pay it no mind. That is a choice you can make.

But when you venture into “well, I don’t think that counts as racism” you have actively bought into the systems of power that have suppressed non-whites, which is tantamount to saying racism doesn’t exist.

I think the week of riots, arson, looting, vandalism, assaults and murders advanced the racist narratives more than anything.

[cricket]

When a white person in America makes an argument such as that in response to a minority’s claim of racism then that automatically qualifies as racism because of the current systems of power in place and the history of demonization advanced by whites.

So if a minority calls out a white person as racist, just the act of defending themselves would prove their point. This is ludicrous.

[jiraffejustin]

So how can a white person help end racism?

[Captain Steel]

So how can a white person help end racism?

How can anyone?

[pahaK]

Well, According to John McClane 's posts I'm definitely a racist. I also consider that type of racism a positive trait in a person (arguing matters based on facts and logic instead of the race of a person making a claim). Saying that a person can make a claim about something, and someone else can't argue that claim based on their ethnicity is insane (it's also racist, btw).

[John McClane]

jiraffejustin - That is an excellent question. The best one in here by far!

https://www.upbeacon.com/article/2019/09/opinion-annika-whitepeopleletsimprove

I’ve already said it a couple of times, but I’ll say it again: listen. Actively listen.

If you’re white and trying to refute claims of racism you know what you’re not doing? Listening.

I know it’s hard to believe that the bar is so low, but that’s where it starts. Just listen.

[Mesmerized]

So how can a white person help end racism?

Through prayer.

[cricket]

If you’re white and trying to refute claims of racism you know what you’re not doing? Listening.

What if you're black? Hispanic? Asian?

[cricket]

https://youtu.be/18IVjGz9Gvk

I imagine if you are white, and you refute this black man, you must be a racist.

[John McClane]

I agree with a lot of what that dude said. But I also hear what a lot of young people are telling me about lack of representation in the media (i.e. movie roles and stories of lived experiences that speak to them) or expectations placed upon them to stand as a representative of their race/home country.

White privilege is a bogus term/idea because anybody can pick it apart. Like the video said it’s an 80s thing. Aside from synth music name one good thing that came from the 80s.

That’s why I call it how it is and use the word racism.

[Captain Steel]

I see that video is from Prager U.

A bit off topic, but back when I was a security guard on the night shift - whenever I had to man the main gatehouse in between my rounds, I'd listen to Dennis Prager on the radio (some station played his show in the wee hours of the morning).
I have to say I rarely heard anything from him I disagreed with.

That was in 1992 (that was 28 years ago!) At the time I thought Dennis Prager was some old dude. Saw him on TV sometime this year and he looked pretty good - guess he wasn't as old as I thought he was back in 1992.
He's 71 now, so back when I was listening to him he was then younger than I am now!
He's only 16 years older than I am. :)

[cricket]

Just found this dude and was very impressed, not necessarily by what he says but with the way he communicates. If you disagree you are racist so I say!

https://youtu.be/HBWJC7LWq7I

https://youtu.be/sPB8-6_fopg

[cricket]

I agree with a lot of what that dude said. But I also hear what a lot of young people are telling me about lack of representation in the media (i.e. movie roles and stories of lived experiences that speak to them)

I get that, but I think that comes with being part of any minority group. I think it has gotten better.

[ynwtf]

...A bit off topic, but back when I was a security guard on the night shift - ... :)


https://youtu.be/FrkEDe6Ljqs

I'm really upset none y'all beat me to this.

[Siddon]

I think the week of riots, arson, looting, vandalism, assaults and murders advanced the racist narratives more than anything.


So if a minority calls out a white person as racist, just the act of defending themselves would prove their point. This is ludicrous.


So how can a white person help end racism?


Well what is the thread topic...Rioting in the US not protesting in the US or police brutality in the US or murder in the US...rioting.

[gandalf26]

It's coming out that George Floyd didn't get along with Derek Chavin when they worked together at a nightclub, apparently due to Chauvin being "too aggressive", could this be a simple case of "I've got you now! I'm in charge", so I'm gonna abuse my Police powers to get my own back.

There are also reports that Chavin had agreed to plead guilty to the 3rd degree murder charge but that was taken off the table and the charge was raised to 2nd degree, probably in relation to the above.

America has a big race problem and race may have played a part in the "spark" that's ignited this unrest, but this incident looks like another ******* cop abusing his authority for personal reasons.

[cricket]

It's coming out that George Floyd didn't get along with Derek Chavin when they worked together at a nightclub, apparently due to Chauvin being "too aggressive", could this be a simple case of "I've got you now! I'm in charge", so I'm gonna abuse my Police powers to get my own back.

I believe the owner originally said that the 2 didn't know each other but I find it hard to believe they didn't cross paths during all those years. Coming in for drinks, to pick up their check, covering a shift; just because they didn't work the same night doesn't mean they never met. On the other hand, my impression is that the cop wasn't sociable. It seems odd that we haven't heard from many people who knew him, just the honky woman he yanked out of the car in front of her baby. He was in a lot of debt, had a rocky marriage, and a violent history. I'm taking a leap, but my guess is that he was miserable, stressed, and thought he was above the law. If I'm his wife, I'm looking at George Floyd and thinking that could've been me.

[cricket]

Well what is the thread topic...Rioting in the US not protesting in the US or police brutality in the US or murder in the US...rioting.

You are right.

Ok, going for a riot after a few beers can be a good time, but you may feel regret in the morning.

Is it worth it?

[Yoda]

I have no idea where this line of reasoning involving questions started, so I think that’s why you’re confusing me.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with asking questions. Asking questions is a good thing and cannot be racist. In fact, asking questions is what gets you answers to reveal how and why something is racist. So I’m all for questions.
:up:

“There is no evidence that [insert event here] was race related” is not a question. It’s a statement. An argument.
Well, it's a response to a statement, a demand for evidence on the initial claim. But even so I'm not sure I see a meaningful distinction, in this context. All the things I'm saying about questions apply just as much to statements.

When a white person in America makes an argument such as that in response to a minority’s claim of racism then that automatically qualifies as racism because of the current systems of power in place and the history of demonization advanced by whites.
Now I'm not sure we've clarified anything, because this is exactly the sentiment I was taking issue with. And I don't see how the ideas on either side of the word "because" are related.

I think this logic still applies:

Not EVERYTHING is racist, right? Therefore it is possible to say a thing is racist when it's not. And I hope we can agree that's bad. So why would it be bad to demonstrate this? It seems like the opposite--claiming a non-racist thing is racist--is the bad thing.
I'd like to see some kind of syllogism explaining why a white person disputing a charge of racism--even when it is not racist and they are correct to dispute it--is racist anyway. And, even if that were established, it seems worth examining whether the definition of "racist" you're using is a good one, if it actually includes correctly disputing a false claim.

[Yoda]

Here's another way to put it:

https://twitter.com/TPCarney/status/1270731506491830272

[cricket]

This chick is awesome; smart, brave, hot, and I love that accent

https://youtu.be/ItopNgRQiuY

[cricket]

I'm coming around to the idea that there was intent in this case. With the stresses I mentioned that the cop was going through, he might have just snapped. If he did in fact have a history with Floyd, it could have given him even more of a push. We will probably never know because I don't expect him to tell the truth about how he felt.

[Captain Steel]

This chick is awesome; smart, brave, hot, and I love that accent

https://youtu.be/ItopNgRQiuY

Before I played the video (just looking at the initial "thumbnail") I thought for sure that was Michelle! ;)

[MonnoM]

You're all a bunch of racist unracists with your nonracist racism. Notzis!

There, that should make both parties happy. Geez.

[cricket]

https://youtu.be/juQLifY4l_0

John McClane is that you?

[Captain Steel]

To counter this new movement of "Abolish / Defund the Police"
I've come up with a counter movement slogan:

INCREASE the POLICE

More cops now!

(There are over 700 police officers currently off duty or permanently out of commission because they are recovering in hospitals after last week. Hundreds throughout the country also put in resignation papers after entire cities, local governments and communities turned against them, and several are no longer with us because they were killed!)


More pay for police!
Better benefits for police!
More enlistment incentives for young people & minorities to become cops.
More recruitment programs in high schools & our nation's universities.
More, longer & better training and education for police!
More training for safer restraining, arrest, crowd control & conflict resolution methods!
More training in responsible use of weapons & self-defense.
More funding for more equipment & upgraded technology.
More funding for non-lethal weaponry for police.
Improved communication, coordination and cooperation between Federal, State, County and local law enforcement.
More funding to track, record & enforce disciplinary action within police forces.
More internal and external services to ensure police accountability!

[cricket]

It all^^sounds reasonable to me

[Captain Steel]

It all^^sounds reasonable to me

Just remember you heard it here first... after Trump, Republicans, Conservatives, FOX News (and generally rational people who aren't buying into the insanity of "Abolish the Police") steal it from me.

(I predict they'll start using it early next week if not sooner!) ;)

[Citizen Rules]

Just remember you heard it here first... after Trump, Republicans, Conservatives, FOX News (and generally rational people who aren't buying into the insanity of "Abolish the Police") steal it from me.

(I predict they'll start using it early next week if not sooner!) ;)

I Predict :)
(https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TH5USLpPa_0)

[Osiris]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hveAGtQ9Two
Usually, I don't like to drag politics into the matter because we should focus more on resolving the racial crisis rather than politicizing the issue... but this response by White House secretary Kayleigh McEnany is the last straw. Accusing an elderly man, who has been assaulted by law enforcement officers in broad daylight, of being an ANTIFA provocateur is NOT the appropriate behavior befitting the president of the United States of America, no matter what rights he or his string of Yes-Men (and Yes-Women) may think. Cowards do that. Paranoids do that.

And why should we give a flying **** about what rights the president has right now when men and women of America are assaulted because of the color of their skin? What rights do THEY have? Where's their right to live?

This is beyond disgusting. This is a farce. Like something right out of a bad dystopian novel.

And on the subject of politicizing matters, can we stop dragging politics into the matter of defunding the police? It's not about democrats wanting their own "woke militia," and it's certainly not about abolishing the police force altogether. There is a problem here with the law enforcement system, and there is a problem with the taxpayers' money not being sufficient enough to fund other important areas of interest such as mental healthcare, homelessness, housing preservation and development, youth and community development or rehabilitation centers for drug addiction. Activists are merely looking to resolve that problem in whatever means policy-makers could do. This is more about directing a portion of that funding to matters that require our attention, not removing cops entirely. It's an economical problem, not a political one. So stop twisting the narrative to fit your political agenda.

You don't need funding for the police to break down doors when there's an unarmed mentally-ill person threatening to kill himself, for example. What is the armed policeman going to do? Threaten to kill him even more? It makes no sense, and the appropriate funding should go to the appropriate organizations, which are insufficiently funded right now.

[WrinkledMind]

Yep, Democrats' wording of issues is going to cost them the election.


If you look deep into the 'Defund the Police' policy it's actually about reforming the police force. Making them more accountable and attaching the right type of individuals to the specific issue at hand.


And yet, like inexperienced children, the Dems have called it Defund the Police. It's made worse by individuals like that woman from Minneapolis committee saying on air that during a house invasion people should check their privileged.


You lot are handing Trump his victory on a plate.

[pahaK]

This is beyond disgusting. This is a farce. Like something right out of a bad dystopian novel.

Yes, but it's the liberal left that's going full Orwell. It's like they're thinking that 1984 was a manual:

"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right."

-George Orwell, 1984

[Osiris]

Yes, but it's the liberal left that's going full Orwell. It's like they're thinking that 1984 was a manual:

"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right."

-George Orwell, 1984
Honestly, I don't really care who's right (or left). I feel like I share the perspective of the protestors and activists who are merely demanding for some form of change to fix an issue - regardless of whether if it's fixed by democrats, republicans, liberals or conservatives. I mean, I've seen decent people from both sides throughout history (and even in history books), but I think what people need right now isn't really to debate whether if liberals are twisting the media or if the right-wind media is doing so; it's irrelevant in my opinion. More than ever, the nation needs to be united and fix the systemic issue that's been going on for more than 50 years since MLK.

If you look at the news, it's not just protestors or activists alone that are voicing out for a change, right? Republicans like Mitt Romney, or more importantly, cops and military officers too lend their voice in saying that the system is broken, and something needs to change. These men and women are significant as they are part of the system and they would recognize how it works and how to fix it more than the protestors and activists who are merely calling attention to a previously ignored issue.

[Citizen Rules]

Yep, Democrats' wording of issues is going to cost them the election.

If you look deep into the 'Defund the Police' policy it's actually about reforming the police force. Making them more accountable and attaching the right type of individuals to the specific issue at hand.

And yet, like inexperienced children, the Dems have called it Defund the Police. It's made worse by individuals like that woman from Minneapolis committee saying on air that during a house invasion people should check their privileged.

You lot are handing Trump his victory on a plate.I believe this might be indeed true...and I'm no fan of Trump either, but I can see his support growing over the Defund the Police movement.

Yes, but it's the liberal left that's going full Orwell. It's like they're thinking that 1984 was a manual:

"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right."

-George Orwell, 1984I've been thinking a lot lately about Orwell's 1984 and the way the people in that novel erase and then rewrite history. It's like a madness has taken over. Scary.

[ashdoc]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/11/trump-seattle-autonomous-zone-inslee/%3foutputType=amp

Yoda won't be travelling to Seattle any time soon lol

[Yoda]

Yeah, I saw. I imagine that'll be, er, cleared up by then.

I saw that they had to call in the fire department, though. "Autonomous" may be a bit of an overstatement.

[ashdoc]

https://www.opindia.com/2020/06/muslim-lives-matter-indian-liberalism-western-progressivism-george-floyd-riots-usa/amp/

In India the left-liberal cabal wants to copy america and start 'Muslim lives matter' movement .

In India the upper caste hindu is equivalent to the 'white male supremacist' in the eyes of liberals and leftists and muslims are supposed to be equivalent to blacks even though they came as invaders not slaves.

[Captain Steel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7mI02JREQ4&feature=emb_logo

[cricket]

I finally watched the Floyd videos. The first several minutes featured only the first 2 responding officers. During this time, Floyd was already in distress, but put up minimal resistance and those 2 officers appeared very gentle with him. They arrest him and he's cuffed. A third officer shows up and that's the second police car. At this point they are struggling with Floyd to get him in the cruiser. The third car carrying the 4th and 5th officers, Chauvin and Thao show up, and at this point the other officers have Floyd inside the cruiser, although still with a struggle. Chauvin joins the action by opening the door on the other side of the cruiser and pulling him out, and of course that brings us to the choke. So there's some things I'm wondering. Floyd was in the cruiser so why did they take him out? It happened right when Chauvin showed up so did he recognize him? Did Chauvin and/or the other police do it to teach him a lesson for resisting? Did they pull him out because he was in distress? Because they called paramedics early on after pulling him out. If they did pull him out for his safety, why the restraint to that extent? The 3 cruisers are still there so what happened to the 5th cop?

https://youtu.be/vksEJR9EPQ8

[Nostromo87]

but this response by White House secretary Kayleigh McEnany is the last straw.

mmm, Kay-kay *swoons* http://i.ibb.co/XW1RsRB/kayy.pnghttp://i.ibb.co/z6sPn7w/kayyy.png

http://i.ibb.co/tYM8rGj/kay.png

[Steve Freeling]

Damn. They burned down a Wendy's in Atlanta tonight.

[chawhee]

Yeah this newest story of a white officer killing a black person is pretty controversial. Chief of police in Atlanta stepping down, and some of the arrest can be seen on video. I can see both sides of it for now, but not sure I have all the details yet. Doesn't seem worth burning the building down though.

[gandalf26]

I finally watched the Floyd videos. The first several minutes featured only the first 2 responding officers. During this time, Floyd was already in distress, but put up minimal resistance and those 2 officers appeared very gentle with him. They arrest him and he's cuffed. A third officer shows up and that's the second police car. At this point they are struggling with Floyd to get him in the cruiser. The third car carrying the 4th and 5th officers, Chauvin and Thao show up, and at this point the other officers have Floyd inside the cruiser, although still with a struggle. Chauvin joins the action by opening the door on the other side of the cruiser and pulling him out, and of course that brings us to the choke. So there's some things I'm wondering. Floyd was in the cruiser so why did they take him out? It happened right when Chauvin showed up so did he recognize him? Did Chauvin and/or the other police do it to teach him a lesson for resisting? Did they pull him out because he was in distress? Because they called paramedics early on after pulling him out. If they did pull him out for his safety, why the restraint to that extent? The 3 cruisers are still there so what happened to the 5th cop?

https://youtu.be/vksEJR9EPQ8

I haven't watched it myself, but I think the answer is if your fellow cop is doing something they shouldn't, let them, or you'll be an outcast. See the black Police officer who pulled her partner away from choking a suspect in 2006, only to be fired for doing so. That case has been highly publicised over the past couple of weeks and according to Reddit its being looked at again. In fact Reddit has loads of similar examples in the "bad cop no donut" sub reddit.

Evil prevails when good men do nothing, but in many or most US Police departments, good Police who do the right thing are the ones punished.

Christopher Dorner and that whole LAPD cluster **** essentially happened because he reported his TO for kicking someone to the body and face. I'm not saying he was a Saint or wasn't wound too tight and something would have happened later that got him kicked off, but essentially he did the right thing and reported a fellow Cop, but he was sacked for it. He wasn't willing to take that lying down. Many Cops in similar situations have been sacked, bullied out or quit, or unfortunately killed.

[cricket]

I agree with all^^that, but when I say what happened to the 5th cop, I mean it's like he disappeared. Everyone talks about the 4 cops, but it seems clear that their were 5 and suddenly 1 is missing.

[MovieBuffering]

mmm, Kay-kay *swoons* http://i.ibb.co/XW1RsRB/kayy.pnghttp://i.ibb.co/z6sPn7w/kayyy.png

http://i.ibb.co/tYM8rGj/kay.png

Damn it. I hate seeing this chick and she is inescapable now. She looks just like a girl I was seeing at the end of last year I was semi-serious with. I mean it's sort of uncanny. Didn't end well. Now I am reminded of her everytime she is on tv :rolleyes:

[Captain Steel]

Damn it. I hate seeing this chick and she is inescapable now. She looks just like a girl I was seeing at the end of last year I was semi-serious with. I mean it's sort of uncanny. Didn't end well. Now I am reminded of her everytime she is on tv :rolleyes:

Dang. I've never had a relationship (serious or semi-serious) with any girl who ever looked anything like that. But you did...

Lucky.

:napoleon:

[MovieBuffering]

Dang. I've never had a relationship (serious or semi-serious) with any girl who ever looked anything like that. But you did...

Lucky.

:napoleon:

lol I'd post a side to side pic to prove it, but I don't think that would be to cool to her. But man it's crazy. I was set to move up to NY to stay with her sometime in Jan/Feb and it fell apart around Xmas. Which turned out to be a good thing because it saved me from the NYC cesspool of Covid and being around the riots. Funny way of working out ha.

[ashdoc]

All this looting means that the anti gun lobby in US has been given a permanent blow from which it may never recover . More and more people will continue to buy guns to protect themselves.

[cricket]

This guy needs to be a future leader in this country


https://youtu.be/88-dV9K_cHE

[ynwtf]

All this looting means that the anti gun lobby in US has been given a permanent blow from which it may never recover . More and more people will continue to buy guns to protect themselves.


Could be true, but to be honest here in the southeast people will panic buy weapons and ammunition if the breeze changes directions.

[Citizen Rules]

This guy needs to be a future leader in this country


https://youtu.be/88-dV9K_cHEThat could be me who made that video, practically everything that was said, I'd said in this thread earlier. Who knows maybe I have a youtube channel!

[Mr Minio]

Dang. I've never had a relationship (serious or semi-serious) with any girl :eek:who ever looked anything like that. Oh.

What do you guys think about the autonomous zone in Seattle?

[ashdoc]

:eek: Oh.

What do you guys think about the autonomous zone in Seattle?

The whole of USA will become an autonomous zone if Trump's supporters don't produce more children. If their homes and shops are being looted with impunity now when they are still in majority imagine what will happen when they are outnumbered

[Captain Steel]

The whole of USA will become an autonomous zone if Trump's supporters don't produce more children. If their homes and shops are being looted with impunity now when they are still in majority imagine what will happen when they are outnumbered

After the last few weeks, I've come to the conclusion that there is a major parenting problem in the U.S. that is much more serious and widespread than I'd originally suspected.

[cricket]

That could be me who made that video, practically everything that was said, I'd said in this thread earlier. Who knows maybe I have a youtube channel!

When an intelligent person of color says these things, of which there are many, the self righteous phony do-gooders just ignore it. If you or I say the same things, they get outraged and judge us.

What do you guys think about the autonomous zone in Seattle?

It's a group of misfits and criminals, not close to the finest of what the human race has to offer. What I want to know is how are the simpletons in local government going to get away with letting them get away with it.

[MovieGal]

Due to the conflicts currently happening in the US recently, during our team meeting at work, we had to watch this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K0fm0bAV6Q

[Wyldesyde19]

It's a group of misfits and criminals, not close to the finest of what the human race has to offer. What I want to know is how are the simpletons in local government going to get away with letting them get away with it.
The same thing they did when a crowd armed with ar-15 Rifles Protested against the lockdown. Look the other way.

[Wyldesyde19]

When an intelligent person of color says these things, of which there are many, the self righteous phony do-gooders just ignore it. If you or I say the same things, they get outraged and judge us.

I wanted to comment on this in particular about self righteous phony do gooders and point out many are coming at this from a point of view that they should feel guilty over past treatment of people of color. The problem with this is they are making it about themselves and it undermines the point of BLM. I’ve seen too many of my friends make this mistake. There was a conversation recently where it boiled down to me and a few others disagreeing with this girls point of view and her and her friend responding “well you’re white soooo.....”
Then it proceeded to turn into a “this is just your inner white supremacist speaking” where I just had to check out. Disagreement Isn’t the same thing as holding a racist view necessarily.
And the whole discussion was calling her out for treating the protests as if she was a a tourist looking for credibility with social justice.
Comment something along the line of wanting to experience being tear gassed. She was rightly called out for it.
And I say this as a supporter of BLM but I won’t feel guilty nor made to feel guilty over something I had no part in from the past.

[cricket]

I wanted to comment on this in particular about self righteous phony do gooders and point out many are coming at this from a point of view that they should feel guilty over past treatment of people of color. The problem with this is they are making it about themselves and it undermines the point of BLM. I’ve seen too many of my friends make this mistake. There was a conversation recently where it boiled down to me and a few others disagreeing with this girls point of view and her and her friend responding “well you’re white soooo.....”
Then it proceeded to turn into a “this is just your inner white supremacist speaking” where I just had to check out. Disagreement Isn’t the same thing as holding a racist view necessarily.
And the whole discussion was calling her out for treating the protests as if she was a a tourist looking for credibility with social justice.
Comment something along the line of wanting to experience being tear gassed. She was rightly called out for it.
And I say this as a supporter of BLM but I won’t feel guilty nor made to feel guilty over something I had no part in from the past.

Good way to view it. People seem to believe there is a black or white way to think, when the way of thinking has nothing to do with color. It's baffling to me how these hypocrites are the ones who show racist tendencies.

[cricket]

Another video from my new hero. 100% right again and hopefully the people who need to listen do just that.

https://youtu.be/4gSprhWKm-c

[John McClane]

Just because white privilege is a sorry excuse for the complexity of the issue and was made up it doesn’t change the fact that this world ain’t equal or just. And America is so diverse and young that some places don’t have to deal with the complexities because of demographics.

[Wyldesyde19]

Yes. The guy in the video is stating his own experiences which isn’t necessarily representative of the world at large.
I think people are confused when it comes to “white privilege” in general and it’s meaning, Which, while well meaning, has morphed from its original point which was to point out the difference society has treated people of color in similar situations to a catch all phrase to explain inherent racism.

[John McClane]

And let’s not forget: https://m.startribune.com/the-real-history-of-mount-rushmore/388715411/

And: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-02/undoing-the-legacy-of-lead-poisoning-in-america

[cricket]

Yes. The guy in the video is stating his own experiences which isn’t necessarily representative of the world at large.
I think people are confused when it comes to “white privilege” in general and it’s meaning, Which, while well meaning, has morphed from its original point which was to point out the difference society has treated people of color in similar situations to a catch all phrase to explain inherent racism.

That's an interesting way to see it. I have a hard time seeing a black man debunking white privilege being chalked up to personal experience. I'd be more interested in what you specifically disagree with him about. Society has most definitely treated black people not as well, but can we really say it means white people are privileged? What happens if we achieve true equality, are black people now privileged as well? I would simply say that white people are more or less treated fairly, and that we all need to build up the black community. And really examine all of the examples you see of "while privilege". Are they really privileges, and if so couldn't they be chalked up to economic or majority privilege? Never mind that judging by skin color is supposed to be the exact thing that we're fighting against. It's a very dangerous thing, and going back in world history it's the kind of ideology that has resulted in the death of millions, and it's the type of thing that could start a race war. On the other hand, what is the potential positive in pushing the white privilege narrative? The BLM thing is similar, and you can't blame people for thinking they're a racist organization when they hold a big meeting but don't allow white people. To me that's the definition of racism. How about we just leave skin color, which I'd call meaningless, out of the equation entirely, except when there's evidence of it being a factor? Things are getting worse, not better, and I believe that continues so long as we continue to make skin color such a huge factor. Police brutality against blacks should not be a social justice issue. Police brutality and racism should be 2 separate issues. They can be connected, but then you could connect racism to any other issue. These are not problems that can be solved by making them one and the same.

[cricket]

Just because white privilege is a sorry excuse for the complexity of the issue and was made up it doesn’t change the fact that this world ain’t equal or just. And America is so diverse and young that some places don’t have to deal with the complexities because of demographics.

I appreciate this post. I just believe we are a little different as to cause. People regardless of color are equal but will never be treated the same, because we are not all the same. I think most of the old school racism is dying off. American born blacks are treated much differently by police than black immigrants. That obviously isn't because of skin color. It's because of the violent culture of a few. Leave white people out of it and not all black people are treated equally by police. This is reality, and I'm not saying it's completely the fault of the American born black community but how do we fix the problem if that doesn't change?

[gandalf26]

There was a big post on Reddit about the Atlanta shooting. It appears to be a legitimate shooting, which a corrupt DA has decided is murder to save his fledgling re election campaign.

-The dead guy was passed out in his car in the drive thru lane.
-To be clear he wasn't sleeping in his car as reports suggested, he was passed out in a drunken stupor, in the drive thru lane, other customers had to drive around him.
-The above meant that he drove there drunk.
-The Police on the tape are extremely patient, not the usual overbearing abusive officers that we see in bad clips. One redditor said if you ever wanted 2 balanced and fair officers it would be these guys. Kudos to body cameras being used, they'll probably save the officers.
-So after a long discussion, breathalyzer was used and guy was over the limit.
-Officers told the guy he would have to be arrested.
-That's when all hell broke loose and the guy went crazy.
-He was physical and grabbed a taser in the struggle.
-Ran away and pointed taser at Officer at which point the shooting occurred.

I didn't watch the clip myself but those are the rough cliff notes.

Maybe don't drink drive for a start, then get physical with officers after they've given you a very fair shake and grab their weapons.

I don't see a jury convicting these guys at all. In fact the DA should face charges.

[John McClane]

We are all the same in that we just want to be happy, healthy, and safe. So we should at least expect the same treatment when it comes to our happiness, health, and safety.

But I agree we are all not the same. Some people have too much money and can buy their way out of most ****ups: that ain't right. And some people are so poor they can't even make a few hundred bucks bail for a non-violent offense so they spend months behind bars on an accusation: that ain't right.

We gotta start by eliminating the billionaires, super PACs, and labor unions. And I will always say start with the billionaires.

There was a big post on Reddit about the Atlanta shooting. It appears to be a legitimate shooting, which a corrupt DA has decided is murder to save his fledgling re election campaign.Shooting someone in the back is NEVER a legitimate shooting. It's the greatest mark of a coward.

[cricket]

It was absolutely a legitimate shooting because while running he turned around and pointed. They didn't know what he was pointing. It could've been a gun that he had, or a gun that he got from one of the officers in the struggle. That doesn't mean he deserved it or that it wasn't a tragedy.

The minute you are talking about other people's money, you are on the wrong path. Don't be jealous, mind your own business, and make your own way in life. Opportunity is there.

[Mesmerized]

I don't see a jury convicting these guys at all.

I don't see it either. Manslaughter maybe, but not murder.

[pahaK]

There was a big post on Reddit about the Atlanta shooting. It appears to be a legitimate shooting, which a corrupt DA has decided is murder to save his fledgling re election campaign.

In the video, it definitely looks like a legitimate shooting to me.

I've also seen people mentioning that the DA who now calls this murder because the cop was never in danger did some time ago, regarding another case, say that tasers are considered lethal weapons under Georgia legislation. To me, it seems that the DA is doing politics with lives of one dead crook and a police officer. He's giving in to the mob's demands for potential profit. If anyone should be prosecuted here, it's the DA (and obviously the mob that burned down Wendy's).

Personally, I think that the only reasonable thing a cop can do these days in the US is to resign. It's no job for a sane person at the moment. Let the people see how well their country fares without law enforcement.

I don't see a jury convicting these guys at all. In fact the DA should face charges.

In the current political situation, I wouldn't be so sure.

[cricket]

I don't see it either. Manslaughter maybe, but not murder.

What it should be is a few days off with pay pending an investigation. Then back to work.

[gandalf26]

We are all the same in that we just want to be happy, healthy, and safe. So we should at least expect the same treatment when it comes to our happiness, health, and safety.

But I agree we are all not the same. Some people have too much money and can buy their way out of most ****ups: that ain't right. And some people are so poor they can't even make a few hundred bucks bail for a non-violent offense so they spend months behind bars on an accusation: that ain't right.

We gotta start by eliminating the billionaires, super PACs, and labor unions. And I will always say start with the billionaires.

Shooting someone in the back is NEVER a legitimate shooting. It's the greatest mark of a coward.

I mean I haven't watched, it but the guy is moving away from the Officers but is turned around aiming a taser at the Officers head when he's shot. If that's how it did go down (I'll watch myself after work), then looks like a clean shoot to me.

Running away isn't a shooting matter and I've seen those disgraceful videos where someone is shot in that manner. Those cops were abominations. Running away pointing a taser at an Officer though....

Shooting someone in the back if they're are pointing a weapon at you is absolutely a legitimate shhoting.

[gandalf26]

I don't see it either. Manslaughter maybe, but not murder.

I'll be amazed if they even lose their jobs. Clean shoot imo. Should be back working.

[gandalf26]

In the current political situation, I wouldn't be so sure.
American juries don't have the best record in the big cases.

[John McClane]

I mean I haven't watched, it but the guy is moving away from the Officers but is turned around aiming a taser at the Officers head when he's shot. If that's how it did go down (I'll watch myself after work), then looks like a clean shoot to me.

Running away isn't a shooting matter and I've seen those disgraceful videos where someone is shot in that manner. Those cops were abominations. Running away pointing a taser at an Officer though....

Shooting someone in the back if they're are pointing a weapon at you is absolutely a legitimate shhoting.
Two shots to the back. Tasers are less-lethal. Murder.

Police can't have it both ways. Either a taser is a less-lethal weapon, which means this event was murder, or it's a lethal weapon and needs to be used with the same restraint as a firearm. I don't see police exercising restraint when they tase people willy nilly these days (just look at those two college students who got taser and forcible pulled from their car for no reason). Tasers doesn't magically become more lethal just because a black dude is holding it.

[cricket]

What you're discounting is that it was dark and it happened very quickly after he wrestled with both officers. It could have been a gun that he was holding and aiming. A taser is much less lethal than a gun, but it is still potentially lethal. It's a big difference in general, but the results can potentially be the same. This is an open and shut case.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Regardless of if it was clean kill or not, how the entire department is handling it is irresponsible. Not answering 911 calls? Serve and Protect is a joke.

[gandalf26]

Regardless of if it was clean kill or not, how the entire department is handling it is irresponsible. Not answering 911 calls? Serve and Protect is a joke.

Agreed. Why did the Atlanta Police Chief resign after the shooting?

[cricket]

Regardless of if it was clean kill or not, how the entire department is handling it is irresponsible. Not answering 911 calls? Serve and Protect is a joke.

I do share some similar feeling, but we have to try to see it through their eyes. The job is dangerous as it is, but now you can be charged with murder for doing the job and doing nothing wrong? I really can't blame them.

[gandalf26]

Two shots to the back. Tasers are less-lethal. Murder.

Police can't have it both ways. Either a taser is a less-lethal weapon, which means this event was murder, or it's a lethal weapon and needs to be used with the same restraint as a firearm. I don't see police exercising restraint when they tase people willy nilly these days (just look at those two college students who got taser and forcible pulled from their car for no reason). Tasers doesn't magically become more lethal just because a black dude is holding it.

I disagree, I'm giving the Police a pass here and I've been very critical of them for years. Who is to say what would be the aftermath of allowing Police to be tasered?

This guy made 3 bad decisions that cost him his life.

1. Drink driving risking the lives of others.
2. Resisting a completely justified arrest and becoming physical, stealing a Police weapon in the process.
3. Pointing a weapon at Police.

[gandalf26]

I mean it's a slippery slope, what weapon do you allow Police to be attacked by before they can lethally retaliate. If they are allowed to be incapacitated, they could have their weapon stolen?

Bats? Knives? Tasers ? Cars?

How about you don't attack Police?

[Wyldesyde19]

That's an interesting way to see it. I have a hard time seeing a black man debunking white privilege being chalked up to personal experience. I'd be more interested in what you specifically disagree with him about. Society has most definitely treated black people not as well, but can we really say it means white people are privileged? What happens if we achieve true equality, are black people now privileged as well? I would simply say that white people are more or less treated fairly, and that we all need to build up the black community. And really examine all of the examples you see of "while privilege". Are they really privileges, and if so couldn't they be chalked up to economic or majority privilege? Never mind that judging by skin color is supposed to be the exact thing that we're fighting against. It's a very dangerous thing, and going back in world history it's the kind of ideology that has resulted in the death of millions, and it's the type of thing that could start a race war. On the other hand, what is the potential positive in pushing the white privilege narrative? The BLM thing is similar, and you can't blame people for thinking they're a racist organization when they hold a big meeting but don't allow white people. To me that's the definition of racism. How about we just leave skin color, which I'd call meaningless, out of the equation entirely, except when there's evidence of it being a factor? Things are getting worse, not better, and I believe that continues so long as we continue to make skin color such a huge factor. Police brutality against blacks should not be a social justice issue. Police brutality and racism should be 2 separate issues. They can be connected, but then you could connect racism to any other issue. These are not problems that can be solved by making them one and the same.
One persons experience, even if a person of color, does not debunk white privilege.
It all comes down to the meaning of white privilege. I’m not sure you completely understand it. Please don’t take that as a slight.
I’ll highlight this quote “ Society has most definitely treated black people not as well,”.
Yes, they haven’t been. And you acknowledging that is part of recognizing white privilege. I’ve seen it first hand when I worked for Walmart many year ago. Two black guys walk in the store and they are followed by security because they look look “suspicious”. Never mind The fact they didn’t do anything to warrant said suspicion.
How often are white people treated the same due to the color of their skin? And that’s the key there. *That when a person of color won’t be treated the same as I would in a similar situation.
The economic or majority privilege you speak of is a result of that, and this results in white privilege. It’s tied into it.
As for the last statement, if indeed a cop shooting is based in racism then he should be prosecuted as such. Now, I’m not going to say they all are. That’s hard to judge without knowing the cops background. Evidence can be discovered to back that up, of course.
Let’s be honest here though, a large number of people of color have been straight up murdered by cops lately.
In similar situations, white people have not been treated the same way at the same rate. Now, I acknowledge there have been a few examples where cops have as shot white people as well For similar situations, but it’s no where near the same the rate as people of color. If color is indeed a factor, they are indeed one and the same.
“ Things are getting worse, not better, and I believe that continues so long as we continue to make skin color such a huge factor”
This is the most correct statement you have made. But maybe not how you intended. It will always be a huge factor, and will continue to be when you have hate groups sprouting up like the KKK. As long as there is racial profiling (an actual thing that’s been admitted to). COINTELPRO from the 1960’s and 1970’s. Look at those and tell me that skin color hasn’t already been made an issue. And when you look closer at it, you’ll understand why they feel the need to have closed door BLM meetings to people of color only before giving it a rather weak and simple description of “definition of racism”.

[Stirchley]

I didn't watch the clip myself but those are the rough cliff notes.


Without seeing the actual tape, how on earth can you post 9 “cliff notes” as you call them? Based on what exactly?

I mean I haven't watched, it but the guy is moving away from the Officers but is turned around aiming a taser at the Officers head when he's shot.


Again, comments on a tape you haven’t seen.

[gandalf26]

Without seeing the actual tape, how on earth can you post 9 “cliff notes” as you call them? Based on what exactly?



Again, comments on a tape you haven’t seen.

I did say I read quite an in depth Reddit post about it in the original post.

[cricket]

One persons experience, even if a person of color, does not debunk white privilege.
It all comes down to the meaning of white privilege. I’m not sure you completely understand it. Please don’t take that as a slight.
I’ll highlight this quote “ Society has most definitely treated black people not as well,”.
Yes, they haven’t been. And you acknowledging that is part of recognizing white privilege. I’ve seen it first hand when I worked for Walmart many year ago. Two black guys walk in the store and they are followed by security because they look look “suspicious”. Never mind The fact they didn’t do anything to warrant said suspicion.
How often are white people treated the same due to the color of their skin? And that’s the key there. *That when a person of color won’t be treated the same as I would in a similar situation.
The economic or majority privilege you speak of is a result of that, and this results in white privilege. It’s tied into it.

See I hear this a lot, and I've heard it in this thread. What nobody can explain is why that is a privilege. In general, white people are treated fairly and not looked at with suspicion, true. Are you saying they should be looked at with suspicion? If not, then that's not a privilege. Isn't it the hope that all people will be looked at without suspicion, meaning treated fairly? If that happens, is everyone suddenly privileged? What I'm saying is, being treated the way you should be treated is not a privilege.

As for the last statement, if indeed a cop shooting is based in racism then he should be prosecuted as such. Now, I’m not going to say they all are. That’s hard to judge without knowing the cops background. Evidence can be discovered to back that up, of course.
Let’s be honest here though, a large number of people of color have been straight up murdered by cops lately.
In similar situations, white people have not been treated the same way at the same rate. Now, I acknowledge there have been a few examples where cops have as shot white people as well For similar situations, but it’s no where near the same the rate as people of color. If color is indeed a factor, they are indeed one and the same.

Well we know more white people are killed every year by police than black people. What rate are you looking at? Population or crime rate? They're both important I assume?


“ Things are getting worse, not better, and I believe that continues so long as we continue to make skin color such a huge factor”
This is the most correct statement you have made. But maybe not how you intended. It will always be a huge factor, and will continue to be when you have hate groups sprouting up like the KKK.

I think the KKK is pretty irrelevant by now. There's a lot more hate out there than they could be responsible for from all races. It's just not organized.

As long as there is racial profiling (an actual thing that’s been admitted to). COINTELPRO from the 1960’s and 1970’s. Look at those and tell me that skin color hasn’t already been made an issue. And when you look closer at it, you’ll understand why they feel the need to have closed door BLM meetings to people of color only before giving it a rather weak and simple description of “definition of racism”.

What does profiling stem from?

[Yoda]

This came up earlier in the thread, but yeah, it's obvious the objection, at least in this case, is that "privilege" implies somebody is getting something unfair, when the reality in those examples is someone isn't getting something they should.

I can't really get a clear answer on what the term does other than make people feel attacked for being treated the way everyone should. That seems like the kind of phrasing you'd choose if the goal was to put people on the defensive, rather than the phrasing you'd choose if your goal was simply to maximize understanding and bring about positive change.

[Wyldesyde19]

See I hear this a lot, and I've heard it in this thread. What nobody can explain is why that is a privilege. In general, white people are treated fairly and not looked at with suspicion, true. Are you saying they should be looked at with suspicion? If not, then that's not a privilege. Isn't it the hope that all people will be looked at without suspicion, meaning treated fairly? If that happens, is everyone suddenly privileged? What I'm saying is, being treated the way you should be treated is not a privilege. /QUOTE]

No, I’m saying people regardless of color should be viewed equally and without suspicion based solely on their color of skin. Yes, all be treated fairly. Yes, you’re right, being treated the same way you should be isn’t a privilege, it’s a right. But the fact is there is a huge difference between how propel of color are treated vs how white people are treated. That’s white privilege.

/QUOTE] Well we know more white people are killed every year by police than black people. What rate are you looking at? Population or crime rate? They're both important I assume? /QUOTE]
Yeah, I poorly worded that looking back. I retract that statement until I can more accurately convey it.


/QUOTE] I think the KKK is pretty irrelevant by now. There's a lot more hate out there than they could be responsible for from all races. It's just not organized. /QUOTE]

Im not so sure I’d call them irrelevant quite yet, even if their numbers have dwindled but those numbers have gone somewhere else, mainly other hate groups of which it has been reported there are over 1,000 such organizations. Even if the KKK are dwindling, other hate groups are thriving.
/QUOTE] What does profiling stem from?
Racial or ethnic profiling is the act of suspecting or targeting a person on the basis of assumed characteristics or behavior of a racial or*ethnic group, rather than on individual suspicion.

[Wyldesyde19]

This came up earlier in the thread, but yeah, it's obvious the objection, at least in this case, is that "privilege" implies somebody is getting something unfair, when the reality in those examples is someone isn't getting something they should.

I can't really get a clear answer on what the term does other than make people feel attacked for being treated the way everyone should. That seems like the kind of phrasing you'd choose if the goal was to put people on the defensive, rather than the phrasing you'd choose if your goal was simply to maximize understanding and bring about positive change.
This is true,it can be perceived as such and often it is used as such as well. But that wasn’t it’s original intent and I certainly hope when I attempt to explain it it isn’t ever perceived as an attack. More of the latter, less of the former.

[cricket]

Racial or ethnic profiling*is the act of suspecting or targeting a person on the basis of assumed characteristics or behavior of a racial or*ethnic group, rather than on individual suspicion.

What about prior results? When the FBI is looking for a serial killer and they try to put a profile together, the first thing they do is say it's most likely a man. The second thing is that he's most likely white.

[Wyldesyde19]

What about prior results? When the FBI is looking for a serial killer and they try to put a profile together, the first thing they do is say it's most likely a man. The second thing is that he's most likely white.
That’s obviously not an example.

[Wyldesyde19]

I answered a few other questions in there but I mistakenly added them inside the quotes 😑

[Citizen Rules]

How do we really know that black people get 'profiled', I.E. followed by security in stores just because they are black? I live in a very racially diverse area and I go to grocery stores, department stores, etc...I see all types of people shopping, and I've never seen black people being followed around by store security, and I'm very observant of human behavior.

But I do know someone who was often targeted by store security and followed around....me! When I was in my mid 20s I had very long hair, think Seattle grunge look, that was me. I remember going into a small pet store to buy some tropical fish, I was with my brother and he was in a big hurry so we walked really fast to the back of the store where the fish were. The owner of the story, sees us and literately jumps from behind the counter and follows us like we were criminals. Another time I went to the bank with a $15,000 cashiers check and wanted to cash it, they treated me like I was a drug dealer and questioned me way more than another person would've been. Yet another time I was with my brother driving to Canada and they made us get out of the car and open the trunk, they didn't do that to any other cars I seen, just us. The point is I'm white and that unfair treatment happened to me, so it can happen to anyone, not because of their skin color, but because of their appearance and behavior.

[Wyldesyde19]

How do we really know that black people get 'profiled', I.E. followed by security in stores just because they are black? I live in a very racially diverse area and I go to grocery stores, department stores, etc...I see all types of people shopping, and I've never seen black people being followed around by store security, and I'm very observant of human behavior.

But I do know someone who was often targeted by store security and followed around....me! When I was in my mid 20s I had very long hair, think Seattle grunge look, that was me. I remember going into a small pet store to buy some tropical fish, I was with my brother and he was in a big hurry so we walked really fast to the back of the store where the fish were. The owner of the story, sees us and literately jumps from behind the counter and follows us like we were criminals. Another time I went to the bank with a $15,000 cashiers check and wanted to cash it, they treated me like I was a drug dealer and questioned me way more than another person would've been. Yet another time I was with my brother driving to Canada and they made us get out of the car and open the trunk, they didn't do that to any other cars I seen, just us. The point is I'm white and that unfair treatment happened to me, so it can happen to anyone, not because of their skin color, but because of their appearance and behavior.
We know it because they have admitted to it. It has long been on record that cops have admitted to doing so.
Edit*
I’ve also been treated before Due to my appearance, but these aren’t necessarily debunks to the racial profiling. Our experiences aren’t necessarily evidence that it does t exist after all

[Citizen Rules]

We know it because they have admitted to it. It has long been on record that cops have admitted to doing so.I've seen a UFO, ergo they must be true. Many people have seen UFOs so they must be undeniably true. See how that works.

UFOs are everywhere and they must stop. Think I'm being silly? Nope, in the 1980s people were freaked out that UFOs were making crop circles, mysteriously removing the organs out of cows and abduction people. This erroneous belief got repeated so many times that it became a 'truth' for a lot of people and many lived in fear of the UFO threat.

[cricket]

That’s obviously not an example.

Why not? Different racial groups are more likely to commit different crimes.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I do share some similar feeling, but we have to try to see it through their eyes. The job is dangerous as it is, but now you can be charged with murder for doing the job and doing nothing wrong? I really can't blame them.


Doing nothing wrong is a bit extreme. Maybe they need more training because a bunch of officers can't handle one drunk guy? A guy is dead. That's the bottom line here. Now they are willingly letting people be assaulted, robberies happen and ignoring break ins....I can't help but feel it's like a child throwing a tantrum. More people are going to be hurt because of their current negligence.


Oh, but they will respond to officer down. Are they more concerned with their own? Looking out for their own selves and not the public?


Again, the shooting is up in the air, I'm not saying its murder, I just dont think its clean cut like you think and the aftermath is causing more problems.


So I do blame them.

[ynwtf]

Regarding "white privilege," it's not so overt as the ways people visually treat other people as it is the things white people generally take for granted because we do not have to even consider such things in our day-to-day interactions. Out of sight, out of mind, and nothing really plays out comparably for us to take notice of directly. Instead, we only learn of it through external observation and, depending on our personal biases, those observations may be filtered to lessen the lesson if not dismissed outright.

Dynamics exist that, on the surface, may not really be observable or even measurable by some standards. Even so, those dynamics may not even feel so significant. For sure nothing that can compete with the sensationalism of headlines like, "white cop shoots unarmed black man," or what have you. But these are things that, over time, compound a sort of unspoken awareness (or dismissal, depending on which side of the social line you stand) that can help perpetuate crap some of us have to deal with or crap that some of us really can't even comprehend until it's experienced. And it's that we likely won't experience it to even begin to understanding it or empathizing with it (whatever "it" may be).

I listened to an interview on NPR (https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/879953980/a-mother-reflects-on-privilege-adoption-and-parenting-without-perfection) the other night from the show Fresh Air.. The interview was of a female author (white) who adopted two black children. The interview goes into a few experiences she had learning of certain assumptions and situations that she had never questioned before until having children of color in her household. These examples range from simple shopping experiences of trying to find band-aids that match the skin of her children compared to the countless options that match her skin tone, to more extreme situations where she had called 911 due to a noise in her backyard. In that situation, the police searched her yard and asked to search the house as a precaution. Not even questioning it, she allowed the search. This was a late night encounter and her two black children were already in bed. Thing is, the oldest heard the noise, got scared, and ran down the hallway to his parents' room. That was upstairs and the police had not worked up to the second floor at that point, but it was only then that the mother even considered that had the two officers (with weapons already drawn) been upstairs when the son ran through the hallway, that things could have turned very wrong.

It was only in that very specific moment of experience and empathy did she even realize the potential risk here. The officers were looking for a possible break-in. The woman who called 911 and who the officers met at the door was white. They had weapons drawn as they searched the house. Then a tall, pre-teen black kid (likely looking older than he was) runs from one room through the hallway to another in fear. The mother took for granted that she had her two children upstairs and were safe, instead of recognizing that her two black children were upstairs, potentially changing the optics dramatically in this very specific context. She had not at all considered this from the officer's perspective just as likely the officers would not have even considered that maybe this black male running through the house might actually be her son. Likely, they would have seen a teenager/young adult of color running in fear in a "white woman's" home with a call to 911 on a noise in the yard.

That is the subtle privilege people so clumsily stumble past, distracted by social media hype. That she had to consider and proactively choose to announce that her child is black, should another situation like this present itself, is something most of us will never have to worry about let alone be mindful for other people. It is not that a white cop did some thing to a black man. That's just the end of that particular road that has been padded with unspoken social acceptance (note for a call back, later) over generations of inequality plus about a hundred other social issues that exist also. (BTW, to call out racial injustice does not by default mean every other problem suddenly doesn't exist or that they are somehow in competition. I'm always blown away by how binary people can make anything to justify a single point of view as if that is reality. Seriously? 'Oh? You're offended by a white cop shooting a black guy? What about black on black crime, huuuuuh?' Yeah. They're BOTH problems. Because one exists doesn't excuse the other. Period.)

Back to my note a few sentences earlier, I typed "acceptance" but that's really not the right word as it implies an awareness of such inequalities from which one could make a conscious decision to choose to accept it. No. I mean very specifically dynamics that we don't even consider to realize we have a choice to accept or not. Those dynamics just are. Or that we can't see them yet because we haven't experienced them. And I mean "we" very broadly. You, personally, may have experienced it. Unfortunately, "you" are not all of society and we do not really have a collective mind to instantly know how one person can relate or not. It's society and across the board that such awareness has to take root and grow. As long as we're all screaming distractions and preference, nothing happens.

[Wyldesyde19]

I've seen an UFO, ergo they must be true. Many people have seen UFOs so they must be undeniably true. See how that works.
Yes, as an example of reductio ad absurdem.
You honestly don’t believe racial profiling exists when they have admitted to such? I don’t get your argument here.

[Wyldesyde19]

Why not? Different racial groups are more likely to commit different crimes.
Becuase the example you provided ignores the basic premise of racial profiling which draws assumptions based off of ethnic and color of skin, where your example provides background information on the suspect to support the conclusion.

[cricket]

Doing nothing wrong is a bit extreme. Maybe they need more training because a bunch of officers can't handle one drunk guy.

You think they should have used more force?

[cricket]

Becuase the example you provided ignores the basic premise of racial profiling which draws assumptions based off of ethnic and color of skin, where your example provides background information on the suspect to support the conclusion.

I got you, but where do the assumptions based on race come from?

[Wyldesyde19]

I got you, but where do the assumptions based on race come from?
From perceived stereotypes basically.

[TheUsualSuspect]

You think they should have used more force?


More force does not equal better. Just be better trained, more tactical. How many officers should it take for one drunk? There was more than enough to handle it better.

[cricket]

More force does not equal better. Just be better trained, more tactical. How many officers should it take for one drunk? There was more than enough to handle it better.

I don't really disagree with you. I was surprised to see the one guy overtake two of them.

[cricket]

From perceived stereotypes basically.

But are any of the stereotypes based on reality? 6% of the population are black males. They account for roughly 50% of the homicides. How do we get around that?

[gandalf26]

More force does not equal better. Just be better trained, more tactical. How many officers should it take for one drunk? There was more than enough to handle it better.

Its even just applying a little common sense, when the guy is pleading for his life he is clearly utterly defeated and desperate, allow him to his feet for air.

As you say better trained, a little more professionalism.

[Wyldesyde19]

More force does not equal better. Just be better trained, more tactical. How many officers should it take for one drunk? There was more than enough to handle it better.
This! Police in general need better training.

[John McClane]

Regardless if you saw it or read about it that don't change the fact that shooting someone in the back is not a clean shooting. Anybody defending behavior like that is equally guilty.

It was absolutely a legitimate shooting because while running he turned around and pointed. They didn't know what he was pointing. It could've been a gun that he had, or a gun that he got from one of the officers in the struggle.So what you're saying is police officers are dumb? Agreed. :yup:

The minute you are talking about other people's money, you are on the wrong path. Don't be jealous, mind your own business, and make your own way in life. Opportunity is there.I'm not taking other people's money. I'm taking my money back. Big difference.

[gandalf26]

Regardless if you saw it or read about it that don't change the fact that shooting someone in the back is not a clean shooting. Anybody defending behavior like that is equally guilty.

So what you're saying is police officers are dumb? Agreed. :yup:


So you can think of no set of circumstances that should result in an Officer shooting someone in the back? Not even if the guy pointed a gun instead of a Taser? I can start listing off all kinds of scenarios that would result in that being the correct course of action.

That's 2 incorrect generalisations in one post.

[John McClane]

So you can think of no set of circumstances that should result in an Officer shooting someone in the back? Not even if the guy pointed a gun instead of a Taser? I can start listing off all kinds of scenarios that would result in that being the correct course of action.

That's 2 incorrect generalisations in one post.Cowards shoot people in the back. I’m glad to know where you stand now.

[Yoda]

You're not addressing his argument/question, which is about how someone can have their back mostly to you and still turn and point a gun.

[Yoda]

Not sure if illustration should be necessary, but I saw this on Facebook the other day:

65490

[John McClane]

Not sure if illustration should be necessary, but I saw this on Facebook the other day:

65490
Thank you for illustrating my point.

[gandalf26]

Thank you for illustrating my point.

Your point being that the guy with the first person view should lower his weapon and just accept death out of some chivalrous notion of not shooting the guy in front of him in the back.

[cricket]

I listened to an interview on NPR (https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/879953980/a-mother-reflects-on-privilege-adoption-and-parenting-without-perfection) the other night from the show Fresh Air.. The interview was of a female author (white) who adopted two black children. The interview goes into a few experiences she had learning of certain assumptions and situations that she had never questioned before until having children of color in her household. These examples range from simple shopping experiences of trying to find band-aids that match the skin of her children compared to the countless options that match her skin tone

Are you sure this is white privilege, or could it be majority privilege and the result of capitalism? Even calling it a privilege at all is a reach. I've heard this exact thing before and it doesn't hold water.

to more extreme situations where she had called 911 due to a noise in her backyard. In that situation, the police searched her yard and asked to search the house as a precaution. Not even questioning it, she allowed the search. This was a late night encounter and her two black children were already in bed. Thing is, the oldest heard the noise, got scared, and ran down the hallway to his parents' room. That was upstairs and the police had not worked up to the second floor at that point, but it was only then that the mother even considered that had the two officers (with weapons already drawn) been upstairs when the son ran through the hallway, that things could have turned very wrong.

It was only in that very specific moment of experience and empathy did she even realize the potential risk here. The officers were looking for a possible break-in. The woman who called 911 and who the officers met at the door was white. They had weapons drawn as they searched the house. Then a tall, pre-teen black kid (likely looking older than he was) runs from one room through the hallway to another in fear. The mother took for granted that she had her two children upstairs and were safe, instead of recognizing that her two black children were upstairs, potentially changing the optics dramatically in this very specific context. She had not at all considered this from the officer's perspective just as likely the officers would not have even considered that maybe this black male running through the house might actually be her son. Likely, they would have seen a teenager/young adult of color running in fear in a "white woman's" home with a call to 911 on a noise in the yard.

That is the subtle privilege people so clumsily stumble past, distracted by social media hype. That she had to consider and proactively choose to announce that her child is black, should another situation like this present itself, is something most of us will never have to worry about let alone be mindful for other people.

This is a real thing, but what you're saying is it's a privilege to be less concerned with being shot by police. Is that really a privilege, or is it just the way it should be? Tell me a white person can get away with a B & E, and then I'll agree with you. Just as an aside, learning how to act around police should be taught in school.

It is not that a white cop did some thing to a black man. That's just the end of that particular road that has been padded with unspoken social acceptance (note for a call back, later) over generations of inequality plus about a hundred other social issues that exist also. (BTW, to call out racial injustice does not by default mean every other problem suddenly doesn't exist or that they are somehow in competition. I'm always blown away by how binary people can make anything to justify a single point of view as if that is reality. Seriously? 'Oh? You're offended by a white cop shooting a black guy? What about black on black crime, huuuuuh?' Yeah. They're BOTH problems. Because one exists doesn't excuse the other. Period.)

I'm all for fighting racial injustice, but there needs to be evidence that the injustice is race related. Assuming it is because of the skin color of the people involved, well that's kind of racist.

Back to my note a few sentences earlier, I typed "acceptance" but that's really not the right word as it implies an awareness of such inequalities from which one could make a conscious decision to choose to accept it. No. I mean very specifically dynamics that we don't even consider to realize we have a choice to accept or not. Those dynamics just are. Or that we can't see them yet because we haven't experienced them. And I mean "we" very broadly. You, personally, may have experienced it. Unfortunately, "you" are not all of society and we do not really have a collective mind to instantly know how one person can relate or not. It's society and across the board that such awareness has to take root and grow. As long as we're all screaming distractions and preference, nothing happens.

Good point, and a good argument against the concept of white privilege.

[cricket]

This came up earlier in the thread, but yeah, it's obvious the objection, at least in this case, is that "privilege" implies somebody is getting something unfair, when the reality in those examples is someone isn't getting something they should.

I can't really get a clear answer on what the term does other than make people feel attacked for being treated the way everyone should. That seems like the kind of phrasing you'd choose if the goal was to put people on the defensive, rather than the phrasing you'd choose if your goal was simply to maximize understanding and bring about positive change.

Right on, and I don't feel personally attacked by it because I think it's silly, but some people do. Nobody will explain what the end game is, like what positive can come from pushing the white privilege narrative? It's certainly dividing people though. I think part of being a good person is live and let live, and try not to judge and generalize. The fact that people do it based on color, while completely ignoring other ethnicities, I find it appalling. Who the hell is anybody to judge one person by saying you have privilege due to the color of your skin? That's bad enough but then to judge millions as a group? It's disturbing. How about judging yourself?

[Wyldesyde19]

To be fair, I do include myself as being of White privilege. I mentioned before, I don’t feel personally guilty over it, but I do recognize it is a real thing. Some don’t, and that’s fine. But this is one of those “agree to disagree” things.

[Yoda]

Thank you for illustrating my point.
We're not going to get stuck in this loop again, where someone contradicts something and you cryptically claim it proves you right but never elaborate on how/why.

The photo shows how someone can be "shot in the back" despite being a threat. How significant that is is subjective, but it would seem to show that "shot in the back" does not mean the person was harmless. That's the thing that requires a response.

[Wyldesyde19]

Right on, and I don't feel personally attacked by it because I think it's silly, but some people do. Nobody will explain what the end game is, like what positive can come from pushing the white privilege narrative? It's certainly dividing people though. I think part of being a good person is live and let live, and try not to judge and generalize. The fact that people do it based on color, while completely ignoring other ethnicities, I find it appalling. Who the hell is anybody to judge one person by saying you have privilege due to the color of your skin? That's bad enough but then to judge millions as a group? It's disturbing. How about judging yourself?
A person is always going to be judged by their actions, and it isn’t unfair to do so. To say “live and let live” is tantamount to just ignoring the problems around us and doing nothing about it. Change doesn’t happen by sitting still.
While I do feel, and I have mentioned this previously, that some go way overboard in their fervor, that shouldn’t detract from the overall issue at hand.*
We can agree to disagree about white privilege, because I don’t think we’ll ever down to any agreement on it, but that’s ok.

[ynwtf]

My position was not about a white (or black) man getting away with B&E so I'm not sure how this is a point to argue.


My point, instead, was to provide an example where a kid's race had to be a consideration that otherwise wouldn't have been an issue had he been white. I'm also not saying this example is representative of all examples. Its just one example to help provide context of privilege some of us get in society.


It should be, "I have two children upstairs, officers." Rather than, "I have two children of color that I've adopted upstairs but the 13yo is 5'8 with a slender build. Please don't assume my child is a threat and shoot him even if he is running away in fear of two strangers with guns in hand approaching his room."


I'm exaggerating to make the point that didn't stick the first time.

[Wyldesyde19]

Not sure if illustration should be necessary, but I saw this on Facebook the other day:

65490
Yeah, this illustrates a good example of mitigating circumstances when judging if a shooting is justified

[cricket]

To be fair, I do include myself as being of White privilege. I mentioned before, I don’t feel personally guilty over it, but I do recognize it is a real thing. Some don’t, and that’s fine. But this is one of those “agree to disagree” things.

You still have to say what the privilege is, as in what do white people get away with that's unfair? And you have no issue with generalizing by skin color?

And conveniently, everybody ignores the crime rate and refuses to comment on it. I've already posted that 6% of the population commit 50% of the homicides. How about that blacks are 12 times more likely to assault whites than the other way around. How about among youth robberies, 67% of them are committed by black males. How about blacks are 8 times more likely to commit robbery than whites. I could go on and on, and I'm not stating an opinion. So when TUS walks into a convenience store with his black buddy as an experiment, and the clerk looks at the black man a little more suspiciously, are you really surprised? Is that racism and profiling, or is that just being aware of what's going on in the world? But you guys give us white privilege. Huh? A convenience store about a mile from me has been robbed four times in the last year and a half. I live in a mixed neighborhood, but all of the perpetrators were black males. So please tell me that the people who work there, who are all black, should look at a white person who has never robbed them with equal suspicion. Try telling me that with a straight face. Maybe a police officer whose life is at risk every day should ignore all of the statistics? Black people are the biggest victims of these crimes. Maybe we should actually be helping them instead of talking this white privilege nonsense that does nobody any good.

[cricket]

My position was not about a white (or black) man getting away with B&E so I'm not sure how this is a point to argue.


My point, instead, was to provide an example where a kid's race had to be a consideration that otherwise wouldn't have been an issue had he been white. I'm also not saying this example is representative of all examples. Its just one example to help provide context of privilege some of us get in society.


It should be, "I have two children upstairs, officers." Rather than, "I have two children of color that I've adopted upstairs but the 13yo is 5'8 with a slender build. Please don't assume my child is a threat and shoot him even if he is running away in fear of two strangers with guns in hand approaching his room."


I'm exaggerating to make the point that didn't stick the first time.

No I understand what you're saying and there's a lot of truth to it. Law abiding black citizens are paying dearly because of law breaking black citizens. That doesn't mean white people are privileged. That means we have to lift up the black community.

[cricket]

A person is always going to be judged by their actions, and it isn’t unfair to do so. To say “live and let live” is tantamount to just ignoring the problems around us and doing nothing about it. Change doesn’t happen by sitting still.
While I do feel, and I have mentioned this previously, that some go way overboard in their fervor, that shouldn’t detract from the overall issue at hand.*
We can agree to disagree about white privilege, because I don’t think we’ll ever down to any agreement on it, but that’s ok.

Yeah it's fine and I do respect your opinion. When I say live and let live, I'm just saying don't judge me and don't put a label on me because you don't know me. White privilege is labeling all white people. That's crazy to me.

[cricket]

I would also like to say that white privilege is another way of saying the privilege of not being black. I think this whole thing is very insulting to black people as well.

[Yoda]

Phrasing aside, I think the charitable interpretation of the term is basically "without parsing individual exceptions, it's generally easier to be white than black." Which I agree with, if only because it's an aggregate thing and a pretty modest claim when taken at face value.

[Wyldesyde19]

You still have to say what the privilege is, as in what do white people get away with that's unfair? And you have no issue with generalizing by skin color?

And conveniently, everybody ignores the crime rate and refuses to comment on it. I've already posted that 6% of the population commit 50% of the homicides. How about that blacks are 12 times more likely to assault whites than the other way around. How about among youth robberies, 67% of them are committed by black males. How about blacks are 8 times more likely to commit robbery than whites. I could go on and on, and I'm not stating an opinion. So when TUS walks into a convenience store with his black buddy as an experiment, and the clerk looks at the black man a little more suspiciously, are you really surprised? Is that racism and profiling, or is that just being aware of what's going on in the world? But you guys give us white privilege. Huh? A convenience store about a mile from me has been robbed four times in the last year and a half. I live in a mixed neighborhood, but all of the perpetrators were black males. So please tell me that the people who work there, who are all black, should look at a white person who has never robbed them with equal suspicion. Try telling me that with a straight face. Maybe a police officer whose life is at risk every day should ignore all of the statistics? Black people are the biggest victims of these crimes. Maybe we should actually be helping them instead of talking this white privilege nonsense that does nobody any good.
I actually have explained it multiple times already.
As for the numbers you’re providing, I haven’t had a chance to look closer at them, so I can’t answer them without having proper knowledge of it. It’s not conveniently ignoring it, I just don’t want to answer without having the right info

[cricket]

Phrasing aside, I think the charitable interpretation of the term is basically "without parsing individual exceptions, it's generally easier to be white than black." Which I agree with, if only because it's an aggregate thing and a pretty modest claim when taken at face value.

I got you, but I think it's another way of painting the black community as victims, and a lot of them don't like it one bit. It's also offensive to all of the other ethnic groups who are completely ignored in the matter.

[Yoda]

Well, that's why I say "taken at face value." The question is just whether that sentence is true, without assuming it's meant to be condescending, considering all other races, etc. Though you can substitute "black" for "minority" if you want. The idea is just to explain what a lot of people mean by the term.

Again, I think it's a poorly-chosen term, possibly used initially because it's accusatory and because some people are really angry about this and expressing that anger maybe occasionally takes priority over putting things in a way that would help fix things. But I think lots of people use the term just to mean "it's harder to be a minority, all things considered."

[cricket]

I actually have explained it multiple times already.
As for the numbers you’re providing, I haven’t had a chance to look closer at them, so I can’t answer them without having proper knowledge of it. It’s not conveniently ignoring it, I just don’t want to answer without having the right info

But if black people are responsible for a disproportionate rate of crime, wouldn't that explain why they are more at risk from police (despite the fact that police kill more whites), and looked at by some people (including other black people) more suspiciously? And if that's the case, doesn't that throw a kink into the white privilege argument?

[cricket]

Well, that's why I say "taken at face value." The question is just whether that sentence is true, without assuming it's meant to be condescending, considering all other races, etc. Though you can substitute "black" for "minority" if you want. The idea is just to explain what a lot of people mean by the term.

Again, I think it's a poorly-chosen term, possibly used initially because it's accusatory and because some people are really angry about this and expressing that anger maybe occasionally takes priority over putting things in a way that would help fix things. But I think lots of people use the term just to mean "it's harder to be a minority, all things considered."

If people just said it's harder to be a minority, I would say yup there's no doubt about it.

[Wyldesyde19]

But if black people are responsible for a disproportionate rate of crime, wouldn't that explain why they are more at risk from police (despite the fact that police kill more whites), and looked at by some people (including other black people) more suspiciously? And if that's the case, doesn't that throw a kink into the white privilege argument?
Not necessarily, no. Again, I sir. Have Enough info to Properly respond though

[cricket]

Not necessarily, no. Again, I sir. Have Enough info to Properly respond though

One last question; if we get to complete racial equality which I think we all want, would blacks then be privileged as well, or would white privilege simply disappear?

[Wyldesyde19]

One last question; if we get to complete racial equality which I think we all want, would blacks then be privileged as well, or would white privilege simply disappear?
Don’t know the answer to that, really. Only time would tell

[cricket]

Don’t know the answer to that, really. Only time would tell

Either way, it destroys the white privilege argument.

[Wyldesyde19]

Either way, it destroys the white privilege argument.
I figured you were phrasing that as rhetorical, since you already have your mind made up., but no....I don’t see how it does

[cricket]

I figured you were phrasing that as rhetorical, since you already have your mind made up., but no....I don’t see how it does

Well if we did achieve equality, then one or the other would have to be true right?

[Wyldesyde19]

Well if we did achieve equality, then one or the other would have to be true right?
If you have to achieve equality, then it would be admitting there is white privilege.

[cricket]

If you have to achieve equality, then it would be admitting there is white privilege.

If black people have record single mother rates, poor graduation rates, and are much more likely to commit crime, that means whites are privileged? Don't we need those statistics equal to achieve equality? Where do Asians rank on the privilege scale?

[Citizen Rules]

If we as a country could: end poverty, provide top notch school systems & college educations to everyone, provide well paying jobs & training, include everyone in full medical coverage and provide hope to people who don't have a hope for a better life...then crime and these problems would largely go away.

[cricket]

If we as a country could: end poverty, provide top notch school systems & college educations to everyone, provide well paying jobs & training, include everyone in full medical coverage and provide hope to people who don't have a hope for a better life...then crime and these problems would largely go away.

First step is get fathers to take responsibility and be fathers. It's not solely a black problem, but it's an enormous problem in the black community. That improves everything that comes after. While I understand affirmative action, I'm not the biggest fan because it's race based. I love the prison reform because while not race based, it disproportionately helps the black community who needs it most. Now find other programs and policys that are not race based, but yet again disproportionately help the black community. Give incentives for people to take care of their kids somehow. The democrats have killed these poor people after they were doing so well years ago and they continue to do nothing for them. Stop making them reliant on government assistance. There are things that can be done just stop misplacing the blame and the problems.

[Wyldesyde19]

If black people have record single mother rates, poor graduation rates, and are much more likely to commit crime, that means whites are privileged? Don't we need those statistics equal to achieve equality? Where do Asians rank on the privilege scale?
Again, this stems from misunderstanding the term. Which has been explained too often to keep repeating here. All you’re doing now is moving the goal posts with endless questions on top on straw man arguments in an Fallacious attempt at disproving the term, where I have already acknowledged that we’ll never agree with it. It just seems it’s more important for you to be “right”, rather then anything else. Can we please put this to rest?
It’s obvious by now we don’t agree, but I do think we can both agree to just move on from endless post after endless post in a vain attempt to one up each other.
Can we agree with that?

[Wyldesyde19]

That definitely comes off much more harsh then I meant it to be, so please Don’t take it so harshly.
I could have worded it a bit better, for sure.

[Citizen Rules]

That definitely comes off much more harsh then I meant it to be, so please Don’t take it so harshly.
I could have worded it a bit better, for sure.I see what you're saying in your last post and both you and Cricket have been civil which is a huge plus:up: You're both good guys!

But ultimately it might be better to agree to disagree and move on to discussing other related issues. Listening more, lecturing less... I know that I'm not changing anybodies mind on an internet board and even if I did it wouldn't matter anyway. The most interesting thing is to listen to what other people think and then explain what we think. We're all friends, we're all MoFos :)

[cricket]

Again, this stems from misunderstanding the term. Which has been explained too often to keep repeating here. All you’re doing now is moving the goal posts with endless questions on top on straw man arguments in an Fallacious attempt at disproving the term, where I have already acknowledged that we’ll never agree with it. It just seems it’s more important for you to be “right”, rather then anything else. Can we please put this to rest?
It’s obvious by now we don’t agree, but I do think we can both agree to just move on from endless post after endless post in a vain attempt to one up each other.
Can we agree with that?

The only explanations I've gotten for the term are, white people aren't looked at with the same suspicion, which there's a reason for, or bandaids are close to the skin color, which there's a reason for. I have no beef with you, and I appreciate that you have been genuine and nonjudgmental towards me. I do hate the term and would like to beat it to death because it hurts a lot of people and helps nobody. I genuinely care about other people so that's why it bothers me.

Many of my questions have not been answered. I want to know if this privilege applies to whites who are Jewish, homosexuals who have been tormented and have had to hide who they are, children who have been molested, women who have been raped, victims of other violent crime, victims of police brutality, those who have lost their loved ones, those who are in prison, those who are poor, those who are homeless, the obese, the deformed, the handicapped, the diseased, the mentally ill, and those who have never caught a break in their life. You have to tell me that you could look them in the eye and say, I know you've had problems, but you are white therefore you are privileged. Could you say that to them?

While we're at it, Asians in America do better than whites with the family structure, staying out of prison, education, and career. Can you tell me it's accurate and acceptable to say they have Asian privilege?

You have to answer both of those questions with a yes. If you can do that then at least I can accept that you truly believe in what you are saying.

And of course we are all friends, even friggin McClane:)

[cricket]

Well this is a sad coincidence. My wife's friend, Kym, just sent her this video. She's the mother in the video and my wife has been advocating for her son Terrel for years.

https://youtu.be/1LQPNFwumJQ

[ynwtf]

If people just said it's harder to be a minority, I would say yup there's no doubt about it.


So, semantics. Got it. Call it by another word and you agree. Call by whatever someone else tries to explain it as and you side-step arguments, respond to what's not actually said and reduce responses to a level that's just easier to dismiss than the totality of what is offered. Band-aids? For all the effort I took to detail out how some things can be perceived as different and inconsequential by one race and not quite so by another, I'm disappointed that you reduce it to band-aids and still claim that no one is answering you. It's a relatable anecdote to try to help offer perspective. I'm not sure you're asking these questions in good faith as efforts presented are misrepresented to argue something else, leaving the original points ignored.




It's harder to be a minority, then. That help?

[cricket]

So, semantics. Got it. Call it by another word and you agree. Call by whatever someone else tries to explain it as and you side-step arguments, respond to what's not actually said and reduce responses to a level that's just easier to dismiss than the totality of what is offered. Band-aids? For all the effort I took to detail out how some things can be perceived as different and inconsequential by one race and not quite so by another, I'm disappointed that you reduce it to band-aids and still claim that no one is answering you. It's a relatable anecdote to try to help offer perspective. I'm not sure you're asking these questions in good faith as efforts presented are misrepresented to argue something else, leaving the original points ignored.




It's harder to be a minority, then. That help?

I'm trying, and I wasn't reducing your argument to band-aids, it was just one of the examples I've been given, and I've been given that example before. I don't think it's semantics either. It's harder to be a minority in any way, not just with race. While it may sound similar to white privilege to you, I don't see the relation at all. Someone can be a minority in their own home, or on this forum. I liked the post you made, agreed with some of it and disagreed with some of it. I try to keep responses as simple and short as I can.

[cricket]

I mean Ynwtf, I get the story of the white woman worrying about her black children. These things certainly happen. The police pulled a gun on me in my own home while responding to a possible break in. A lot of things can happen or look suspicious regardless of race. I also told the story of the National guard mistaking me as a looter. If I were black, there's a good chance I'd believe it only happened because I was black, and many people would believe me. Except I'm not black so it's, nothing?

[ynwtf]

No I understand what you're saying and there's a lot of truth to it. Law abiding black citizens are paying dearly because of law breaking black citizens. That doesn't mean white people are privileged. That means we have to lift up the black community.


As you said, that doesn't hold water.
When did I ever claim that the relationship between the hardships of law abiding and law breaking black citizens mean white people are privileged? If anything, I admitted that there are more issues at play here than just one. Pretty sure I emphasized that in red. Sec, lemme see if that's true....


Yup. Here it is. You even quoted me.


It is not that a white cop did some thing to a black man. That's just the end of that particular road that has been padded with unspoken social acceptance (note for a call back, later) over generations of inequality plus about a hundred other social issues that exist also. (BTW, to call out racial injustice does not by default mean every other problem suddenly doesn't exist or that they are somehow in competition.


Plus about a hundred other social issues that exist also. In addition to. Along side of.



I guess it's easy to misrepresent what others say to make a new argument against that, instead of you know, what was said.


Speaking of misrepresenting arguments:
This is a real thing, but what you're saying is it's a privilege to be less concerned with being shot by police. Is that really a privilege, or is it just the way it should be? Tell me a white person can get away with a B & E, and then I'll agree with you. Just as an aside, learning how to act around police should be taught in school.


You omitted the other half of that summary. It's more of a privilege to be less concerned with being shot by police when white, than as a 13 year old black kid (or whatever age the kid was, before that becomes another distraction) living in his white mother's home. It never happened btw. But it is an example of things we generally have to think less of. Yes, I consider living completely ignorant of that risk as a privilege. It is definitely easier for me in that exact situation than as a minority. That better? You already agreed to that specific phrasing so I assume this is resolved.


Still waiting for where I said a white person can get away with B&E. Considering I didn't say that either, I guess this one is resolved too.


This isn't fun btw. I don't think I like having to backtrack against things I'm not arguing. I don't believe others are enjoying it either. That's not debate. That's not even an argument. It's free-for-all no holds barred and completely counterproductive.

[ynwtf]

Eh, I've had my fun for the night. Gnite all.

[cricket]

As you said, that doesn't hold water.
When did I ever claim that the relationship between the hardships of law abiding and law breaking black citizens mean white people are privileged? If anything, I admitted that there are more issues at play here than just one. Pretty sure I emphasized that in red. Sec, lemme see if that's true....

I didn't say you said anything about the relationship. That's what I said and you're missing my point. Innocent black people are paying for the sins of criminal black people, and that has nothing to do with white people being privileged.


You omitted the other half of that summary. It's more of a privilege to be less concerned with being shot by police when white, than as a 13 year old black kid (or whatever age the kid was, before that becomes another distraction) living in his white mother's home. It never happened btw. But it is an example of things we generally have to think less of. Yes, I consider living completely ignorant of that risk as a privilege. It is definitely easier for me in that exact situation than as a minority. That better? You already agreed to that specific phrasing so I assume this is resolved.

I do not agree that not worrying about the police is a privilege. Any law abiding citizen should not have to worry about the police. If you agree with the last statement, then it can't be a privilege.

Still waiting for where I said a white person can get away with B&E. Considering I didn't say that either, I guess this one is resolved too.

I never claimed you said that. I'm saying if you can tell me that, then that would be a privilege, because unlike not worrying about police, that's actually not supposed to happen.

This isn't fun btw. I don't think I like having to backtrack against things I'm not arguing. I don't believe others are enjoying it either. That's not debate. That's not even an argument. It's free-for-all no holds barred and completely counterproductive.

I think some people are misunderstanding some of my posts. That's partly my fault, but I usually have a reason as to why I'm wording things the way I am.

[cricket]

My position was not about a white (or black) man getting away with B&E so I'm not sure how this is a point to argue.


My point, instead, was to provide an example where a kid's race had to be a consideration that otherwise wouldn't have been an issue had he been white. I'm also not saying this example is representative of all examples. Its just one example to help provide context of privilege some of us get in society.


It should be, "I have two children upstairs, officers." Rather than, "I have two children of color that I've adopted upstairs but the 13yo is 5'8 with a slender build. Please don't assume my child is a threat and shoot him even if he is running away in fear of two strangers with guns in hand approaching his room."


I'm exaggerating to make the point that didn't stick the first time.

I didn't mention something because some of this stuff in my mind is obvious. Reverse the color. The mother is black and the two sons are white. The police will assume the woman has black kids. Suddenly they see a 5'8 white kid who's 13 but looks older running down the hallway. You really think there's no danger there of something bad happening? You really believe they will ignore him and assume he's one of her children because he's white? You don't believe that.

[TheUsualSuspect]

You still have to say what the privilege is, as in what do white people get away with that's unfair? And you have no issue with generalizing by skin color?

And conveniently, everybody ignores the crime rate and refuses to comment on it. I've already posted that 6% of the population commit 50% of the homicides. How about that blacks are 12 times more likely to assault whites than the other way around. How about among youth robberies, 67% of them are committed by black males. How about blacks are 8 times more likely to commit robbery than whites. I could go on and on, and I'm not stating an opinion. So when TUS walks into a convenience store with his black buddy as an experiment, and the clerk looks at the black man a little more suspiciously, are you really surprised? Is that racism and profiling, or is that just being aware of what's going on in the world? But you guys give us white privilege. Huh? A convenience store about a mile from me has been robbed four times in the last year and a half. I live in a mixed neighborhood, but all of the perpetrators were black males. So please tell me that the people who work there, who are all black, should look at a white person who has never robbed them with equal suspicion. Try telling me that with a straight face. Maybe a police officer whose life is at risk every day should ignore all of the statistics? Black people are the biggest victims of these crimes. Maybe we should actually be helping them instead of talking this white privilege nonsense that does nobody any good.

Can you please provide links to these numbers? Curious to see where you're getting this information from. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'd just like to look at it myself. People tend to post "facts" but no links to back it up.

Thanks.

[Wyldesyde19]

I’m not sure how those numbers prove that cops haven’t targeted people of color. I’m sure not all are race related of course, I’m not naive, but how does pointing out the fact that white people are more often killed during a crime (Cops did their job! shocker!) prove that people of color are not racially profiled?
It’s a red herring argument.
But since you guys like figures so much here are some reports:
According to The Guardian's database, in 2016 the rate of fatal police shootings per million was 10.13 for Native Americans, 6.6 for black people, 3.23 for Hispanics; 2.9 for white people and 1.17 for Asians. By total, police more frequently killed whites than any other race or ethnicity.As a percentage of the U.S. population, however, black Americans were 2.5 times more likely than whites to be killed by the police in 2015.A 2015 study found that unarmed blacks were 3.49 times more likely to be shot by police than were unarmed whites.Another study published in 2016 concluded that the mortality rate of legal interventions among black and Hispanic people was 2.8 and 1.7 times higher than that among white people. Another 2015 study concluded that black people were 2.8 times more likely to be killed by police than whites. They also concluded that black people were more likely to be unarmed than white people who were in turn more likely to be unarmed than Hispanic people shot by the police.A 2018 study in the*American Journal of Public Health*found the mortality rate by police per 100,000 was 1.9 to 2.4 for black men, 0.8 to 1.2 for Hispanic men and 0.6 to 0.7 for white men.

[gandalf26]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police-shootings-2019/

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls

1st link Washington Post keeps track of police killings, admittedly an estimate but I'd imagine pretty close. 2nd link is to FBI homicide stats of 2017. Couldn't find more recent.

Post wouldn't let me get 2017 stats without subscribing by 986 were killed by police that year 991 in 2018 so the numbers are almost dead even. 226 blacks were killed by police in 2018, I'll round up even for 2017 and give it 300. In 2017 2,627 out of 2,970 blacks were killed by other black and only 264 by whites. So you basically had 9 times greater chance to be killed by another black person if you were black in 2017 than a cop. Plus if you count justifiable force for police killings the numbers drops lower.

If you combined blacks AND Hispanics killed by police in 2018 and 2019 it doesn't equal the number of whites in the same time frame according to the Post's numbers.

Floyd's killing was god awful. But the narrative has been bought and sold by America and the world through the media/social media. Racism sells. I am all for some police reform, law reform and other ways to help brothers and sisters in America but this racist America thing sucks to me. Racism is a factor but I think in 2020 the bigger problem is class and unfortunately African Americans are disproportionaly lower class. But class protest like Occupy Wall Street doesn't sell as well as race protests do.

Hopefully we can come out of all this crap better for it but I am not optimistic.

Agree that Racism sells, its why 2 Atlanta PD officers have been charged with murder.

The Media: "Another poor black man gunned down by white cops, he was just trying to sleep in his car".

The Reality: "Drink driving p.o.s selfishly puts other road users at risk then gets physical with Police who treat him very fairly and suicides himself by Cop"

I'm not saying racism doesn't exist or that America doesn't have a big racism problem, or that there isn't a racism problem within the Police, which there clearly is but lots of incidents have nothing to do with race, and I think George Floyd was one of them. It was an aggressive thug with a badge who should have been fired years earlier, and was possibly taking out a personal vendetta against Floyd. Derek Chavin is married to an asian woman too which makes racism less likely a factor.

[gandalf26]

Nice wholesome post!

https://www.reddit.com/r/madlads/comments/hd1mi7/i_wasnt_fast_enough/

[cricket]

Can you please provide links to these numbers? Curious to see where you're getting this information from. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'd just like to look at it myself. People tend to post "facts" but no links to back it up.

Thanks.

I think that was from Wiki. I wouldn't take them as perfect fact either, but that's the general ballpark.

[cricket]

I’m not sure how those numbers prove that cops haven’t targeted people of color. I’m sure not all are race related of course, I’m not naive, but how does pointing out the fact that white people are more often killed during a crime (Cops did their job! shocker!) prove that people of color are not racially profiled?
It’s a red herring argument.

I'm not saying it isn't happening, I'm saying it is. I'm just saying it's happening because of the crime statistics, not simply because they have dark skin. That leads to the numbers you posted below.


But since you guys like figures so much here are some reports:
According to The Guardian's database, in 2016 the rate of fatal police shootings per million was 10.13 for Native Americans, 6.6 for black people, 3.23 for Hispanics; 2.9 for white people and 1.17 for Asians. By total, police more frequently killed whites than any other race or ethnicity.As a percentage of the U.S. population, however, black Americans were 2.5 times more likely than whites to be killed by the police in 2015.A 2015 study found that unarmed blacks were 3.49 times more likely to be shot by police than were unarmed whites.Another study published in 2016 concluded that the mortality rate of legal interventions among black and Hispanic people was 2.8 and 1.7 times higher than that among white people. Another 2015 study concluded that black people were 2.8 times more likely to be killed by police than whites. They also concluded that black people were more likely to be unarmed than white people who were in turn more likely to be unarmed than Hispanic people shot by the police.A 2018 study in the*American Journal of Public Health*found the mortality rate by police per 100,000 was 1.9 to 2.4 for black men, 0.8 to 1.2 for Hispanic men and 0.6 to 0.7 for white men.

So let's help the black community with the problems within their own community, and that will improve how they are perceived. It's the problem and reality of group identity.

[John McClane]

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=96748

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/VIOCRM.PDF

https://www.splcenter.org/20180614/biggest-lie-white-supremacist-propaganda-playbook-unraveling-truth-about-‘black-white-crime

For statistic nerds.

Lets not ignore the facts to posit sensationalist myths. You are far more likely to be murdered or robbed by someone you know from your own race than a random person from a different race.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I think that was from Wiki. I wouldn't take them as perfect fact either, but that's the general ballpark.


What part of wiki?

[cricket]

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=96748

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/VIOCRM.PDF

https://www.splcenter.org/20180614/biggest-lie-white-supremacist-propaganda-playbook-unraveling-truth-about-‘black-white-crime

For statistic nerds.

Lets not ignore the facts to posit sensationalist myths. You are far more likely to be murdered or robbed by someone you know from your own race than a random person from a different race.

You don't need links or stats to know that's true. Most people are mostly around others of their own race so all interaction is more likely. That means crime or relationships or whatever. It also proves my point because the mistrust of blacks manifests itself more in the black community itself. I deliver in all types of neighborhoods to liquor stores and convenience stores. When I deliver to a white neighborhood, the clerk will walk right into the back room with me to show me where they want their stuff, even if there are customers in there. When I deliver to a black neighborhood, they all have those metal grates to protect their business, bars over the windows, more cameras, they are armed, and they won't leave the counter for even a second without locking the door. These clerks and owners are black so it's not racism, and it's black people who are mostly victims. It's not 100% because there are bad white neighborhoods and good black neighborhoods, but it is the norm.

[cricket]

What part of wiki?

I don't know. If you just google crime rates in America by race it should come up, along with many other sites. You will find some stats that are misleading, for instance, 13% of the population commits 50% of the homicides. That is misleading because the vast majority are committed by men, which makes it closer to 7%.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I don't know. If you just google crime rates in America by race it should come up, along with many other sites. You will find some stats that are misleading, for instance, 13% of the population commits 50% of the homicides. That is misleading because the vast majority are committed by men, which makes it closer to 7%.


I don't know man. I'm not in the habit of doing other people's research. You threw out a bunch of stats so I asked you to back it up.