Jump to content

General US Politics


Ansem

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

You haven't linked to any mainstream sources at all, you haven't shown much of anything but your own feelings about this, and you haven't linked to specific legislation that targets whites people.

I mean our Attorney General is highly anti-black, joking that the problem with the KKK is just that they smoke weed. Wanting to re-institute mandatory minimums. Looking into racism against white people in college campuses where the majority of them are white. And this guy has an executive position.

I'll knock these two out at once.  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450088/jeff-sessions-affirmative-action-college-admissions-investigate-racial-discrimination

You're probably saying Jeff Sessions is anti-black for rolling back affirmative action.  In reality, he's trying to make it equal for everyone.  I think it's astonishing that asian americans who suffer a ton of abuse are never referenced by Liberal radicals.  They're all about protecting black rights, mexicans, muslims, and woman.  What about asian americans who have to "score 450 higher than black students".  But..wait, only "140 points higher than white students".  What is this?  Shouldn't it be 0 points higher across the board?  It's suprising to me how the minorities left out by the liberal agenda suffer the most.  But by all means, Jeff Sessions is clearly targeting blacks by imposing equality.

27 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Right now you're backed against a corner and going "I WANT ALL RACISM GONE" but you're ignoring the reason why organizations like the NAACP and BLM exist. You're also ignoring actual issues that are related to race and the fact that one race constantly gets the short end of the stick. Being white is a factor that factors into your privilege, it's not the only thing that you have going for you. But let's not pretend at all that being called privileged is anything bad in comparison to the experience of a minority in this country, especially if they're black.

I'm not in a corner.  I live in the midwest, away from all the liberal consensus going on in the far western US.  Why do the NAACP exist if they're going to tell me that my state is so racist they need to issue a travel advisory asking minorities to avoid entering?  Especially when there are plenty of minority people living here already.  Why should BLM exist if it was forged under a debunked case of hate crime and encouraged people to physically target police officers and led to the death of many. Police officers are significantly more afraid since the birth of BLM.

27 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

I linked media outlets watched and read by a lot of people who have a habit of unfairly criticizing minorities for no real reason. CNN is also a right of center outlet not a left leaning outlet contrary to what the far right thinks.

If you think CNN, a station that repeatedly criticizes republicans for being sexist, racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic is a white supremacy news outlet...I don't know how to explain reality to you.

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, Lushen said:

*words*

When you start a post with "I'm not going to claim that there is more racism against white people than black, I imagine it's the other way around"  and end with "calling out white privilege and protesting for more black rights is just making people more frustrated," that should be a pretty good tell that you've got a whole lot of nothing in between.

...So inordinate racism still exists and continues to produce disparate treatment of affected minorities.

...but we're not supposed to talk about it or call for corrective action.

...and if we talk about it we're the bad guys, because the problem isn't that inordinate racism still exists and continues to produce disparate treatment of affected minorities. The problem is that people get upset when you talk about it.

Do you see why when you say things like this, people might think you come across as just a wee bit ignorant and over-privileged?

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Lushen said:

You're probably saying Jeff Sessions is anti-black for rolling back affirmative action.  In reality, he's trying to make it equal for everyone.  I think it's astonishing that asian americans who suffer a ton of abuse are never referenced by Liberal radicals.  They're all about protecting black rights, mexicans, muslims, and woman.  What about asian americans who have to "score 450 higher than black students".  But..wait, only "140 points higher than white students".  What is this?  Shouldn't it be 0 points higher across the board?  It's suprising to me how the minorities left out by the liberal agenda suffer the most.  But by all means, Jeff Sessions is clearly targeting blacks by imposing equality.

...  yes he is and his "equality" is not equality.

Stop calling them Liberal Radicals.

At any rate, I'm one of those "Asian Americans" that has had to work extra hard due to AA despite being part of a relatively impoverished asian-american demographic. In fact, many Muslims that you're referencing are also screwed by AA, so I don't see your point about how liberals are in favor of muslim rights and black rights??

AA is a really shitty scotch tape solution to a wider problem -- one that Jeff Sessions, this current Congress and this current Administration, and clearly right wing radicals such as yourself don't actually care about, because he's a white supremacist full stop and much of our executive branch isn't too different.

AA is about quotas anyway, not raising/lowering standards. It happens that they have to adjust standards for that reason, but it's a scotch tape solution that's been debated in this thread to hell and back.

17 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I'm not in a corner.  I live in the midwest, away from all the liberal consensus going on in the far western US.  Why do the NAACP exist if they're going to tell me that my state is so racist they need to issue a travel advisory asking minorities to avoid entering?  Especially when there are plenty of minority people living here already.  Why should BLM exist if it was forged under a debunked case of hate crime and encouraged people to physically target police officers and led to the death of many. Police officers are significantly more afraid since the birth of BLM.

a) BLM's stance does not inherently target police officers

b) BLM rose up as a result of officers targeting black people disproportionately, which has not been debunked

c) police officers are more afraid since the birth of BLM? I'm looking at the pew research link and I'm seeing this:

PSDT_01.11.17.police-00-11.png

It seems like they're afraid because they don't inherently see a problem with the way the law is applied differently depending on their race. That basically says that Police Officers probably do need training.

besides, they're armed, what do they have to be afraid of?

17 minutes ago, Lushen said:

If you think CNN, a station that repeatedly criticizes republicans for being sexist, racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic is a white supremacy news outlet...I don't know how to explain reality to you.

right of center != white supremacy

lol?

22 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Maybe so, but I'm not really sure the Democrat base would call themselves 'fiscal conservatives' - they seem willing enough to spend government funding pretty freely even if they are not exactly 'socialist' from an economic standpoint. Neoliberalism is more accurate, and it's not like they are going to pick up much by going further right-wing.

Sorry for ignoring this, @Tryhard, but a Blue Dog democrat is one of the things I'm referring to. That's how we end up getting democratic reps and senators in conservative states. Though, they're socially centrist to conservative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States) as well.

 

Edited by Lord Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lushen keeps bringing up the Ferguson Riot origins of BLM and the NAACP's travel advisory against Missouri as some sort of self-justifying pair of grievances. For some very misguided opinions on race.

This is a teachable moment.

I'm going to leave this here and kindly request that Lushen read at a level where we can substantively converse about the subject-matter therein: this is the published report of the United States Department of Justice--Civil Rights Division--"Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department," dated March 4, 2015. Undertaken in response to the outcry produced by BLM. 

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf

Please Review.

I will be referencing this document for any further discussion of the matter.

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS:

1)   “Ferguson’s law enforcement practices are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs. This emphasis on revenue has compromised the institutional character of Ferguson’s police department, contributing to a pattern of unconstitutional policing, and has also shaped its municipal court, leading to procedures that raise due process concerns and inflict unnecessary harm on members of the Ferguson community. Further, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices both reflect and exacerbate existing racial bias, including racial stereotypes. Ferguson’s own data establish clear racial disparities that adversely impact African Americans. The evidence shows that discriminatory intent is part of the reason for these disparities. Over time, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices have sown deep mistrust between parts of the community and the police department, undermining law enforcement legitimacy among African Americans in particular.”
 

2)    "The City’s emphasis on revenue generation has a profound effect on FPD’s approach to law enforcement. Patrol assignments and schedules are geared toward aggressive enforcement of Ferguson’s municipal code, with insufficient thought given to whether enforcement strategies promote public safety or unnecessarily undermine community trust and cooperation. Officer evaluations and promotions depend to an inordinate degree on “productivity,” meaning the number of citations issued. Partly as a consequence of City and FPD priorities, many officers appear to see some residents, especially those who live in Ferguson’s predominantly African-American neighborhoods, less as constituents to be protected than as potential offenders and sources of revenue."
 

3)    "Officers expect and demand compliance even when they lack legal authority. They are inclined to interpret the exercise of free-speech rights as unlawful disobedience, innocent movements as physical threats, indications of mental or physical illness as belligerence. Police supervisors and leadership do too little to ensure that officers act in accordance with law and policy, and rarely respond meaningfully to civilian complaints of officer misconduct. The result  is a pattern of stops without reasonable suspicion and arrests without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment; infringement on free expression, as well as retaliation  for protected expression, in violation of the First Amendment; and excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment."

 
Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lushen said:

I'm not going to claim that there is more racism against white people than black, I imagine it's the other way around. Nevertheless, there are areas where if you go as the only white person around it can be incredibly dangerous and areas where if you go as the only black person around it can be incredibly dangerous in the United States.  

What I can argue is that most of our politics and media are more against white people than black people.  Examples like Black History Month, Black Student Union, Black Lives Matter, NAACP.  You could try to help Lord Raven find actual examples of black people being criticized in the media, but you'll probably just see the opposite.

I have never heard anything near that bad said about white people in public. 'Other species'? (even if admittedly this was a bit too crazy even for Fox News)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owcUci6Z18w (was an excerpt in this)

It's not as if you can't find right-wing media getting into hot water over racism accusations, and not just because of hysteria either - there's no shortage of dumb things said, the far-right is known for having a history of homophobia and pro-segregation in the US. I mean I don't really need to get into how the media covers shootings and riots, do I?

4 hours ago, Lushen said:

If you think CNN, a station that repeatedly criticizes republicans for being sexist, racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic is a white supremacy news outlet...I don't know how to explain reality to you.

I was under the impression that CNN was an establishment Democrat network, so he would be right in saying they were center-right. They did not like Bernie Sanders at all, to my recollection.

3 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Sorry for ignoring this, @Tryhard, but a Blue Dog democrat is one of the things I'm referring to. That's how we end up getting democratic reps and senators in conservative states. Though, they're socially centrist to conservative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States) as well.

Mmm, I always though it strange that basically Republicans in disguise were pushed as being okay in the Democratic party as long as they are fine with gays and abortions, essentially. Being somewhat socially liberal doesn't exactly make you a hero.

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

<snip>

I gave you the courtesy of reading through the police investigation and honestly I saw a lot of stuff I did not know and found it quite informative.  That being said...I think you're missing my point.  My arguements against the NAACP and BLM are that they are dysfunctional organizations that lead to more harm than good.  

BLM in particular, is built on a lie.  As I've said, Michael Brown's death was unarguable justified by the police officer who was forced to go into protection and relocation with his family due to death threats, his life destroyed.  The whole "Hand's up, Don't Shoot" motto they keep spuring out is also based on a lie.  If you go on BLM's website, you will see images with people protesting with signs saying both "Arrest Darren Wilson" (a man who was found innocent) and "Hand's Up Don't Shoot signs.  If you're interested in more lies being spout out by BLM, here's a link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/18/lies-black-lives-matter/

NAACP also has significant disorganization.  The branch office in St. Louis told them to revoke their travel advisory saying citing that 38 other states have the exact same laws that promt'd the NAACP to issue this warning.  Again, Missouri was not known as particularly racist until the Ferguson effect which was based on a lie.  This shows that the national NAACP did not even consult the branch office in st. louis when they issued their travel advisory.  Not only that, but it's not just claiming the Missouri is a racist state, but also sexist and woman should also exercise extreme caution when traveling...The lunacy of this organizations claim is profound.  

If BLM was using the claims found in the article you just referenced, it would be fine.  But it is not.  All it does, is this : http://time.com/4850263/black-lives-matter-baton-rouge-police-shooting/

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BLM's main issue is a lack of unification among its differing factions. It's not an organized movement, and the violent chapters get more press than the peaceful chapters.

That being said, your criticisms aren't valid for the entirety of BLM. Only for specific chapters and people. At any rate, Missouri wasn't known as particularly racist (well it was but..) until that investigation came to light is what you're saying? Then it's good that the investigation was done to reveal the truth behind the PD right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

BLM's main issue is a lack of unification among its differing factions. It's not an organized movement, and the violent chapters get more press than the peaceful chapters.

That being said, your criticisms aren't valid for the entirety of BLM. Only for specific chapters and people. At any rate, Missouri wasn't known as particularly racist (well it was but..) until that investigation came to light is what you're saying? Then it's good that the investigation was done to reveal the truth behind the PD right?

The investigation got very little media coverage.  Most of the media coverage was over Michael Brown who is still mentioned every few months and people want to turn it into a national holiday.  I often wonder what he would think if he was alive about how his death started all this after he charged a police officer and was literally inside the policecar attacking an officer when he was shot....

The thing is, BLM is dominantly practiced in the midwest, where it all began.  The people outside of the midwest that offer support for BLM often have very little clue as to how disorganized and radical it is.  They just see it as another black rights activist movements.

Not all black rights activist movements are bad, but the two I mentioned have a long history of causing disruptions, spreading propaganda, and lies.  Hell, the leader of NAACP resigned after it was alleged she lied about her race.  And all this other crap

https://thoughtcatalog.com/daniel-hayes/2015/06/rachel-dolezal/

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BLM operates basically everywhere, what are you talking about?

7 minutes ago, Lushen said:

The investigation got very little media coverage.  Most of the media coverage was over Michael Brown who is still mentioned every few months and people want to turn it into a national holiday.

???

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/politics/ferguson-darren-wilson-justice-department-report/index.html

and uhh the holiday thing? http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/police-group-declares-anniversary-browns-death-darren-wilson-day

Darren Wilson day is not Michael Brown day..

7 minutes ago, Lushen said:

The people outside of the midwest that offer support for BLM often have very little clue as to how disorganized and radical it is.  They just see it as another black rights activist movements.

I think the fact that they all disagree on how to do it shows that they're disorganized. For the record, here's the website: http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/

If you wanna read about their "radical" ideology, then go ahead. It's not inherent in the organization. It's inherent in certain chapters.

Edited by Lord Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

No, this is the police dep't rightfully mocking the fact that some BLM people want to have Michael Brown anniversary day.  Every year for the past two years, Michael Brown has been brought back up and repeated protests on his birthday as though it is a national holiday.  

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/photos-crowds-gather-to-remember-michael-brown-on-second-anniversary/collection_29ca7eba-5ed4-5648-9b91-99d4c447b23e.html

I've never seen someone who committed unprovoked assault memorialized like this.

9 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

I think the fact that they all disagree on how to do it shows that they're disorganized. For the record, here's the website: http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/

If you wanna read about their "radical" ideology, then go ahead. It's not inherent in the organization. It's inherent in certain chapters.

I was just on their website.  Remember, I referenced the photos they have with "Hands Up Don't Shoot" and "Arrest Darren Wilson" signs.

 

Also relevant, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/08/how-americans-view-the-black-lives-matter-movement/

"About a third familiar with the group say they don't understand it's goals"

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not even sure why you're arguing this point. BLM was more or less in the works as early as Trayvon Martin (many news articles as well as their own website corroborates this). Whether or not they're holding up Michael Brown as a martyr should be irrelevant, given that he was one of the catalysts to their movement as well as the revelation of the Ferguson police department. Regardless of whether or not Michael Brown initiated attack, it's still fucked up that

a) a police department is being so petty as to celebrate his death just because people are taking a day of mourning for it;

b) people are focusing on the specific Michael Brown case instead of the investigation

In either case, you're pointing out a flaw in their overall movement, and it does not at all trivialize the point that their movement is trying to make: that black people disproportionately targeted by law enforcement. I mean, their argument on their website was why wasn't Darren Wilson carrying a taser?

Even though the final evidence and judgment about the officer's self-defense was correct, there are plenty of reasons to be mad about Michael Brown regardless. He's definitely not the best martyr, but there are reasons to lionize him, especially since the police force doesn't really care about the other instances that came out in the wake of the DOJ's investigation of this case.

5 minutes ago, Lushen said:

"About a third familiar with the group say they don't understand it's goals"

Isn't that the point I was making?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BLM was not taken seriously until the Ferguson effect.

Police are not celebrating his death, they are celebrating the fact that their fellow officer wasn't murdered by all the protesters that forced him into witness protection and relocation.

Why should we lionize Michael Brown?  He was doped up on marijuana, a robber, and charged a police officer like a bear when he being arrested.  We should lionize this behavior?  Michael Brown contributed literally nothing positive towards society during his life.

6 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Isn't that the point I was making?

Just cause you're making a point doesn't mean I disagree with it...

I've also stated that the issue with BLM is it's extremely disorganized.  

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2017 at 3:42 PM, Lushen said:

Police are not celebrating his death, they are celebrating the fact that their fellow officer wasn't murdered by all the protesters that forced him into witness protection and relocation.

You said it was to mock the protesters, did you not?

On 8/4/2017 at 3:17 PM, Lushen said:

No, this is the police dep't rightfully mocking the fact that some BLM people want to have Michael Brown anniversary day.

 

On 8/4/2017 at 3:42 PM, Lushen said:

Why should we lionize Michael Brown?  He was doped up on marijuana, a robber, and charged a police officer like a bear when he being arrested.  We should lionize this behavior?  Michael Brown contributed literally nothing positive towards society during his life.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/brown.asp

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/us/michael-brown-ferguson-police-shooting-video.html a robber? That's debunked

Doped up on marijuana? Who cares? Teenagers are doped up all the time and Shoblongoo has covered drugs already.

Regardless, I'm not saying he's the best symbol, but let's not pretend that his shooting did not have a massive impact on the movement. That's the point I'm making. I'm not sure why you're reading much more into this.

Edited by Lord Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2017 at 3:42 PM, Lushen said:

Why should we lionize Michael Brown?  He was doped up on marijuana, a robber, and charged a police officer like a bear when he being arrested.  We should lionize this behavior?  Michael Brown contributed literally nothing positive towards society during his life.

why should we lionize him? valid question.

why are you vilifying him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

why should we lionize him? valid question.

why are you vilifying him?


Michael Brown is admittedly not the best example.

And BLM has since rallied behind clearer examples of police officers going unpunished after blatant, on-camera misconduct resulting in needless deaths (Eric Garner and Tamir Rice come to mind).

Here's The noteworthy element of Ferguson that made the Michael Brown shooting such a volatile flash-point, and what Lushen is missing.

The problem in Ferguson (and this is a microcosm of a much broader problem nationwide) was that there was so much unpunished police misconduct being swept under the rug and such rampant distrust of law enforcement in affected communities, the police lacked credibility to establish their own narrative. So you have a case where:

  • An unarmed black teenager is shot dead by police.
  • The police put out a statement that said teenager attacked the officer and that the shooting was justified.
  • Eye-witnesses dispute the police account
  • The broader community says: We see this all the time. You arrest us. You beat us. You shoot at us. When we've done nothing wrong; but you make up a story that we lunged at you or made threatening movements, and you call your actions justified. We don't believe you They demand an investigation into police misconduct.
  •   The police investigate themselves and exonerate themselves of wrongdoing.
  • The broader community says: No. We don't accept this. We report police misconduct and excessive force all the time; all they ever do is rubber-stamp whatever the officer puts in a police report and say 'thats how it happened. Case closed.' They demand a federal investigation to get to the truth. 

    ...then the Feds come in....

To reiterate--we're at this point because there is absolutely ZERO trust in local law enforcement to conduct a legitimate investigation into alleged police misconduct or give an honest account of the underlying incident.   

...The Feds do their investigation...

And the Feds come to the conclusion: "...Well we can't say that the police officer acted without justification in this particular incident. But upon further investigation--the broader complaints that Ferguson PD engages in a pattern and practice of police misconduct including discrimination, unlawful stops and arrests, and excessive force. And the allegations that they routinely protect offending officers, while failing to punish officer's who use the badge and the gun to brutalize their communities or respond to citizen's complaints of police misconduct in any meaningful way. That's all absolutely true; this is a breach of public trust and violation of rights that must be remedied with corrective action.

And then FINALLY--after much rioting and protesting and national headlines--The City starts firing abusive officers and setting forth new training and disciplinary procedures, and the broader community starts seeing some meaningful reforms.

...and that was the beginning of a national conversation on policing...people looked at the reports coming out of Ferguson and started speaking up about what was going on in their on communities...

Rightfully so.

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2017 at 10:07 AM, Lushen said:

*snip*

So you're missing most of my point...

'Only' 90% of minorities speak English fluently is actually a pretty high percentage and doesn't explain why they aren't more proportionally represented in U.S. politics.

Of course the majority of the media is in English. I wasn't arguing for it to be otherwise. The problem occurs when you have U.S.ians saying 'speak English or get the fuck out of my country!' when English is not a native language of the U.S., when actual Native Americans have had their languages quashed and forbidden, and when it's a hypocritical behaviour given, like you say, that many U.S.ians speak nothing other than English. 

(Side note: As an English person from England whose native language is English, when a U.S. person criticizes my pronunciation/spelling, well... that's something).

Game of Thrones is fantasy. It might draw from European history but it wouldn't lose anything if the races were to be portrayed differently. There's also no reason why we can't have more adaptations of fantasy written by people of colour, or why we can't maintain a 'realistic' proportion of race *and* make a black person the protagonist. (For example, one of my favourite shows is Luther. Black protagonist, rest of the cast is mostly white, it's still 'proportionate' representation). Are you saying that white people need white protagonists in order to watch TV shows? For them to be successful? 

Maybe, just maybe, if we had more positive representations of minority characters in media, we'd see an overall shift in racial relations, plus better role models for youngsters. Especially as nearly half of babies now born in the U.S. are non-white, so while white people may currently make up the majority of the population, that is changing.

Also, none of your arguments back up the vast the majority of protagonists being male. 50.8 of the U.S. is female; what's the argument against better female representation?

Quote

The fact that she came so close means females stood just as much chance in the election as males.

LOL.

Quote

That doesn't mean people born after 1957 are to blame for what their parents did or suffered from.

Again, point missed. Things don't occur in a vacuum. People don't suddenly gain rights and suddenly everyone's attitude shifts. The very fact that there are still people who were alive during segregation and when interracial marriage was banned and when minorities didn't have voting rights who are alive today means that those attitudes still exist in many areas. And those racist people are parents and grandparents who still influence how their children and grandchildren think. Ruby Bridges is only 62 years old; MLK Jr, if he were still alive, would be younger than my grandparents.

On 8/4/2017 at 3:42 PM, Lushen said:

Michael Brown contributed literally nothing positive towards society during his life.

This is a really repugnant thing to say.

He was 18. Exactly what was an 18 year old supposed to have contributed towards society? Are we all being judged by our contributions to society now? Is that how we determine how someone has a right to live or die? I'm sure his friends and family have many positive memories of him; I'm sure he was of value to them.

It doesn't even matter if he did rob a store (although he didn't) - since when did a robbery confer the death sentence? There's this awful tendency to back up any police shooting with any minute example of wrongdoing in someone's life when the actual point is, we have a judicial system that isn't supposed to work that way. We're supposed to give people fair trials with a judge and jury. The police should be doing whatever they can NOT to kill suspects. Somehow they often succeed to keep a suspect alive when the suspect is white and armed (Dylann Roof, James Holmes, etc.). Only the U.S., amongst developed nations, has such an issue with police shootings.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

 

<snip>

No offense, but you weren't in Missouri were you?  I had to watch the local news talk about this everyday and this really is not how that happened.  

 

What really happened was, Michael Brown was shot.  Perhaps the black community was being mistreated in unrelated issues.  If they started peaceful protests demanding a federal investigation, fine, but that's now what happened.

The Ferguson community did not ask or even call for a federal investigation, people started rioting violently such as throwing molotov cocktails in shopping outlets and burning gas stations to the ground.  One man even threw a molotov into his own home and lit it on fire because he was disoriented by all the chaos and didn't know where he was throwing it.

People used the chaos to loot stores and threaten police.

Investigation went on outside of the 'protesters' who had no idea what was actually going on and could not reference anything from the investigation and did not know Michael Brown.

At this point, Michael Brown's family asked people to stop because they were giving him a bad name.

Investigators said no one would be charged for this indecent but maybe there were other cases of mistreatment.  Regardless, the Ferguson community was not paying attention to any of this.

By this point, the people in Ferguson had enough fun and settled down, but people from other states traveled long distance so they could join in on the protests.

People who had no idea WTF was going on from other states ended up making the majority of the protesters.

At this point, Michael Brown's family started encouraging the protests, despite what they had said earlier, likely because they were getting a lot of positive attention and quite a bit of money.

BLM exploded and caused chaos in many other states which directly caused the death of several police officers.

 

@Res Again, you don't know what you're talking about.  He was not shot unprovoked, witnesses claim half of his body was inside a police car beating the officer who shot him.  A robbery doesn't and did not warrant the death penalty, but reaching for an officer's gun does.

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lushen said:

What really happened was, Michael Brown was shot.  Perhaps the black community was being mistreated in unrelated issues.  If they started peaceful protests demanding a federal investigation, fine, but that's now what happened.

Do you honestly believe that there would have been any federal investigation or plan for corrective action if there had been no rioting and national headlines? Honestly???

I'm less bothered that there was a riot, and more bothered that a riot is what it took to bring the practices outlined in the Justice Department's report under federal scrutiny.

And no...this isn't isolated to Missouri...

There were nationwide calls for federal investigations of police departments after Ferguson. To which, in the absence of rioting and national headlines, the Justice Department was unresponsive.

...then Baltimore started rioting over the death of Freddy Grey in police custody
...then the Justice Department was finally moved to open an investigation into the Baltimore PD
...and then they found:

https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/883296/download

...and they found that this has all been going on since "at least the late 90s."

No one in a position of power for twenty (20) years could be bothered to do anything about it. Until there was a riot.

Riots are the voice of the unheard. When you actually stop and think about the meaning behind the words instead of just dismissing the people chanting them as thugs and malcontents, there is something profound about the statement: "No Justice. No peace."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Lushen said:

 

@Res Again, you don't know what you're talking about.  He was not shot unprovoked, witnesses claim half of his body was inside a police car beating the officer who shot him.  A robbery doesn't and did not warrant the death penalty, but reaching for an officer's gun does.

Yes; I've read all about that. He was still ultimately killed when he was far away from the car. And again, police are often able to deescalate other situations, and this is almost solely a U.S. problem. 

1 minute ago, Shoblongoo said:

Riots are the voice of the unheard. When you actually stop and think about the meaning behind the words instead of just dismissing the people chanting them as thugs and malcontents, there is something profound about the statement: "No Justice. No peace."

Yes.

MLK Jr himself had a lot of things to say that don't exactly agree with current arguments...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:


Michael Brown is admittedly not the best example.

And BLM has since rallied behind clearer examples of police officers going unpunished after blatant, on-camera misconduct resulting in needless deaths (Eric Garner and Tamir Rice come to mind).

sure he isn't the shining example, but that's missing the broader point.

this 18 yo young man is being vilified by some of the public because he made a few mistakes. my brother was actually not very much different from lushen's view of michael brown when he was 18. my brother isn't a waste of space, and i'm not saying that from an emotional point of view--people can change. people can grow. 18 is so young to pass a sort of judgement like that. 

michael brown is as good an example as most. lethal force was used when it shouldn't have been. on a person that, perhaps given time to grow, could have become a real member of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People can't change when they're dead.  Whatever Michael Brown's potential was, he died as a man violently attacking a police officer and lionizing him will only encourage the same behavior.

Eh, at a certain point you just have to agree to disagree.  More important news, N. Korea's WMD program has reached an all time high. I'm telling you, N. Korea is more of a threat to the US than anything else.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/north-korea-now-making-missile-ready-nuclear-weapons-us-analysts-say/2017/08/08/e14b882a-7b6b-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html?utm_term=.c4d94f5a8211

People like to excuse WW3 as a fantasy in the minds of conspiracy theorists, but keep in mind WW2 was only 72 years ago.  Though, I doubt Korea would rally enough people behind them, other countries like China rely off us way too much for trade.

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

People can't change when they're dead.  Whatever Michael Brown's potential was, he died as a man violently attacking a police officer and lionizing him will only encourage the same behavior.

Eh, at a certain point you just have to agree to disagree.  More important news, N. Korea's WMD program has reached an all time high. I'm telling you, N. Korea is more of a threat to the US than anything else.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/north-korea-now-making-missile-ready-nuclear-weapons-us-analysts-say/2017/08/08/e14b882a-7b6b-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html?utm_term=.c4d94f5a8211

People like to excuse WW3 as a fantasy in the minds of conspiracy theorists, but keep in mind WW2 was only 72 years ago.  Though, I doubt Korea would rally enough people behind them, other countries like China rely off us way too much for trade.

'more important'? nk more of threat than anyone else? nk literally cannot strike us.

stop your fear mongering.

 

http://www.fallen.io/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

'more important'? nk more of threat than anyone else? nk literally cannot strike us.

stop your fear mongering.

 

http://www.fallen.io/

You do know how nukes work right?  Like...literally the existance of nukes in N Korea means they can strike us.  If you're referring to the range not being long enough to hit the US from Korea, I'll remind you the Japanesse bomb'd Pearl Harbor, one of our military bases first.  And N Korea has explicitly mentioned Guam.

http://www.wfmynews2.com/news/nation-world/report-north-korea-making-missile-ready-nuclear-weapons/462814538

This is a bipartisan issue, I'm not fear mongering. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

North Korea isn't a direct threat to the US, but it is still questionable if the situation will remain the same if their missile launchs improve enough to reach dangerously close to Japan, not because I think they'll magically learn how to fire at the US, but because of the global repercussions that might rise from it. Japan has demonstrated valid discontent with it, and China already told North Korea to control themselves (to no avail, since they fired another anyway).

I'm not saying it will be a big threat, but that it has the potential to become something troublesome as far as international relations are concerned (which doesn't mean much other than "stay vigilant and hope they don't screw the situation that much").

---

About Michael Brown (oh shit here we go again), I've read many versions (due to different political positions on the media), one which says the cop fired in self defense and another which says the cop fired after there was no threat. It is difficult for me to find out what really happened because the truth is distorted by each version. What I know is that vestiges were found in the car, so he did try to give the cop a beating inside his car, and that he was killed after he was out of the car. This doesn't say much. If anyone has better sources, I'm open.

That said, I disagree with the logic that violent protests and riots are valid because this logic borders Machiavellian "the end justify the means" thinking, which does not sustain itself rationally. It is not true that I may use any action in my disposal to reach the end I want, even if it is a noble goal. And if I give a moral pass to such an act, I am imperatively forced by my morals to also give a pass to other radical actions with questionable methods, as long as the goal is considered noble. tl;dr, the reasoning doesn't sustain in itself and is harmful, thus it must be reprimanded.

If anything, it had the opposite desired effect: It didn't make other people more sympathetic to the alleged police brutality and unfairness. It made protesters look like "violent thugs" without a cause other than taking opportunity of the chaos. It is not helping Michael Brown's side at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...