If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

@Einherjar86 I think it's more ridiculous that you're comparing the women's movement to BLM. The women's movement was a reaction to very real oppression, BLM was started as a reaction to an incident which was proven to be justified and quite obviously piss all to do with genuine oppression, but rather racebaiting and reacting to cases before even a tiny fraction of the facts are even known.

George Zimmerman resisted arrest and has a slew of assault, battery charges, and attempted rape from his girlfriend and wife. He also had a record before shooting and murdering Trayvon Martin. Nobody stated that he was a thug or a threat to society.

Why should dangerous people like him be able to take it upon themselves to follow, harass and assault people, ultimately resulting in their death? That's nonsense and a classic example of what's wrong with society if you believe Alton Sterling was a threat (selling illegal bullshit) and not George Zimmermann.

I can agree with that, he was a piece of shit. He probably would be considered a "thug" if he was more "street" in appearance, which is what people basically mean when they say "thug" and that's why wealthier middle-upper class black criminals aren't called "thugs" I guess. Unless anybody has examples to the contrary.

If we deem Zimmerman to be a threat though, are we racist?

 

[CiG]

Also predictably nobody is talking about the cops killing unarmed Dylan Noble.

 

[Einherjar86]

@Einherjar86 I think it's more ridiculous that you're comparing the women's movement to BLM. The women's movement was a reaction to very real oppression, BLM was started as a reaction to an incident which was proven to be justified and quite obviously piss all to do with genuine oppression, but rather racebaiting and reacting to cases before even a tiny fraction of the facts are even known.

The very focus of my comment is that men at the turn of the twentieth century said the exact same thing about the women's movement - they said that it wasn't "real oppression."

You're assuming some grand, extra-historical perspective that allows you to say: "Yes, the suffrage movement was justified; but this BLM is clearly bullshit." I'm saying that there is no point from which you can definitively make that claim, and doing so comes off as absolutist. It's easy to perceive BLM in exactly the same way that men of power perceived the suffrage movement.

And you basically reiterated my caveat about apples and oranges. Yes, I know they're very different and that the objects of protest are different.

 

[Dak]

That doesn't make it okay. It's still a problem that needs to be solved.

What i see is a lot of people not acknowledging there is a problem, or a need for a solution. A lot of people in denial and being dismissive as often as they can to ignore the issues. This violence can't go on forever. We need to fix the source of the problem before it gets worse. That source is racism.

Looking at all the different problems facing America in general, racial relations in America, and minority communities in America, at the degree and levels of impact for each, potential racism by cops and any unjustified use of lethal force is so far down the list that if the depth and weight above were represented by the ocean, you'd need quite a sturdy sub to get down that far. Opportunity cost and decreasing marginal returns are why focusing on a very small problem at the expense of much larger issues is a poor decision.

People were quick to whip out Alton Sterling's crime list (a bunch of minor crimes aside from sleeping with the 17 y/o but also something that most likely happens quite frequently too but doesn't mean he deserved to die while surrendering),

Alton Sterling had basically everything on his sheet (and multiple separate episodes) except non-statutory rape and murder. So anything else is a "minor" crime?

I'm sorry but George Zimmerman is a piece of shit degenerate.

but what about Zimmerman's? He got charged with battery a few times and even sold the gun he used to kill Trayvon for a quarter of a million. He was not a cop and should not have been following this teen in the first place. He got beat up, couldn't handle it, and shot him. That's wrong any way you swing it. He went way too far.

George Zimmerman resisted arrest and has a slew of assault, battery charges, and attempted rape from his girlfriend and wife. He also had a record before shooting and murdering Trayvon Martin. Nobody stated that he was a thug or a threat to society.

Why should dangerous people like him be able to take it upon themselves to follow, harass and assault people, ultimately resulting in their death? That's nonsense and a classic example of what's wrong with society if you believe Alton Sterling was a threat (selling illegal bullshit) and not George Zimmermann.

Don't apologize, he is/was a piece of shit. But he wasn't white (he identified as Hispanic) and yes he wasn't a cop, which is now all BLM seems to be about. People throw murder around pretty loosely. Murder is premeditated. The Zimmerman/Martin incident was either manslaughter or justifiable homicide. A jury determined the latter. I'm at a loss as to what selling the gun has to do with anything.

Within the confines of any given historical context, the rioters/troublemakers always look this way to those who don't comprehend the purpose for rioting. They said the exact same thing about the suffragettes, and it wasn't as though white British men at the turn of the twentieth century knew they were in the wrong but trying to hide it from all those delicate and hysterical women. They thought they were right, and they fought to keep it that way. To them, women blowing up mailboxes and setting off bombs in front of politicians' homes looked foolhardy and ignorant; but it worked.

And before you accuse me of comparing apples to oranges, the object of protest may not be the same - I fully admit that the "object" of BLM is more abstract than that of the suffrage movement. The social response from those not affected as much by the problem, or who cannot comprehend the problem, is very similar, however. There's a certain social blind spot when it comes to these kinds of very complex social grievances, and while I think there are opportunists who take advantage of it, I also happen to think there are legitimate anxieties and concerns among those protesting.

50% of the population denied voting rights ~=~ something occurring with less of a likelihood than being struck by lightning? It's not "more abstract". You have to blow a grain of sand - not a molehill - up into a mountain to begin to make a comparison. Or rather "community organizers", "multicutural studies professors", etc have to. I think the anxieties are legitimate in that they are felt by many. I think concerns about a lack of police accountability - broadly speaking, are well founded. But the racebaiting bullshit; the characterization of innocent black America under bloody siege by a ruthless, racist organization in blue uniform is completely unsubstantiated by any facts and is 100% guaranteed to only lead to more deaths on all sides.

 

[CiG]

The very focus of my comment is that men at the turn of the twentieth century said the exact same thing about the women's movement - they said that it wasn't "real oppression."

They said that regardless of facts, we're saying what we're saying because of facts. It's not comparable.

If it turned out that blacks were being charged or killed disproportionate to how often they break the law or give police a justifiable reason to shoot them, I'd absolutely call it real oppression and racially motivated brutality, but the facts just do not fall in place for such a reaction.

You're assuming some grand, extra-historical perspective that allows you to say: "Yes, the suffrage movement was justified; but this BLM is clearly bullshit." I'm saying that there is no point from which you can definitively make that claim, and doing so comes off as absolutist. It's easy to perceive BLM in exactly the same way that men of power perceived the suffrage movement.

I don't agree at all, I can look at all the events that BLM use as fuel for their movement and perhaps 2 events out of them all were blatant police brutality, the rest were deaths resulting in the deceased's own actions and were justified. "Hands up don't shoot" being a prime example. I can't however look at the history of women and say "that was actually bullshit women were equal with men under the law."

Again, it's not comparable.

 

[Baroque]

It did start over nothing, actually.



Fuck them tbh.

That was the first time the term was used but it was not the first event where it needed to be used. It came about because of other events that happened before that in addition to that. Also calling that boy's life nothing is pretty brutal there...

 

[Einherjar86]

They said that regardless of facts, we're saying what we're saying because of facts. It's not comparable.

If it turned out that blacks were being charged or killed disproportionate to how often they break the law or give police a justifiable reason to shoot them, I'd absolutely call it real oppression and racially motivated brutality, but the facts just do not fall in place for such a reaction.

I don't agree at all, I can look at all the events that BLM use as fuel for their movement and perhaps 2 events out of them all were blatant police brutality, the rest were deaths resulting in the deceased's own actions and were justified. "Hands up don't shoot" being a prime example. I can't however look at the history of women and say "that was actually bullshit women were equal with men under the law."

Again, it's not comparable.

The problem with facts is that they actually don't speak for themselves.

The facts at the turn of the century said that women didn't need to vote, that they couldn't handle the responsibility of voting, that they should devote their attention to the household, etc.

They were making an argument because of facts. It all has to do with which facts you find important.

But if you don't agree then you don't agree.

But the racebaiting bullshit; the characterization of innocent black America under bloody siege by a ruthless, racist organization in blue uniform is completely unsubstantiated by any facts and is 100% guaranteed to only lead to more deaths on all sides.

I think it's funny that no matter how hard I try, I keep getting sucked back into this debate. Most people here have very different perspectives on what racism is and where the problem lies. It's probably a waste of everyone's time to rehash that old train of thought.

 

[Baroque]

Since there are overwhelmingly more white cops than black cops, why wouldn't one expect this to be the case, even if the percentage were low?

Ok so there are a larger proportion of white cops, check. That leads to a larger proportion of cops racist against blacks, check. Blacks have a smaller proportion of the overall population, check. Therefore a disproportionate number of blacks experience racism by cops.

 

[CiG]

More cops are killed by black people than black people are killed by cops. That's quite a startling reality imo.

They were making an argument because of facts. It all has to do with which facts you find important.

But if you don't agree then you don't agree.

Not the same thing really, by facts I mean statistics here, not sexist opinions strengthened by the status quo.

But I'll bow out of this, I'm not really adding anything of worth anyway.

 

[Baroque]

More cops are killed by black people than black people are killed by cops. That's quite a startling reality imo.
.

You ignored my point. What I have said is yes there are a larger number of cops racist against blacks than against whites. And blacks have a smaller overall population. Thus blacks are more likely to (and do) experience racism.

That's white privilege in a nutshell. We don't have to fear as much things like interacting with a police officer. Though my point isn't directed at you personally since you're not even in the US, or white but at anyone else who doesn't yet see the problem BLM is talking about. They're not always doing the best job of expressing themselves on the issue but that doesn't cover up the underlying fact there is a problem.

I'm not saying all aspects of white privilege are correct, but that's one clear example where it exists.

As to your point, that may be true, but it also may be true because they have good reason to not trust the police or government because of past and current racism.

 

[CiG]

That's white privilege in a nutshell. We don't have to fear as much things like interacting with a police officer.

I don't know anybody that doesn't fear police interaction, now elevated fear of police in the black community isn't necessarily backed up by statistics, I'm inclined to think that the kind of racebaiting and fear mongering that many people do in regards to blacks vs cops, especially BLM, is actually only further endangering black people.

Cops kill just as many whites as they do blacks, but the big difference I can see is that whites don't have identitarian racebaiting movements stoking distrust, fear and hatred in their communities, causing them to both fear and be confrontational with police.

Another thing, if white privilege can be defined as you say, why do we also not have phrases like female privilege or Asian privilege, since both "groups" are even less likely to be fucked with by police?

 

[Baroque]

Another thing, if white privilege can be defined as you say, why do we also not have phrases like female privilege or Asian privilege, since both "groups" are even less likely to be fucked with by police?

We absolutely do have those terms as well. Every culture/gender has some sort of privilege in their community be it minor or not.

 

[CiG]

Oh? Well, there you go. Fair enough!

 

[Dak]

Ok so there are a larger proportion of white cops, check. That leads to a larger proportion of cops racist against blacks, check. Blacks have a smaller proportion of the overall population, check. Therefore a disproportionate number of blacks experience racism by cops.

What would be a proportionate number of experienced racism? Your statement here is very weird. I agreed that more blacks will be likely to experience racism from cops than whites. This is because even if the percentage of racist white cops is extremely low, the percentage of black cops is so low that even if they were all racist, the odds of racial interactions between black cops and whites would most likely still be lower (since black cops are more likely to in areas with higher black populations anyway).

I will circle back to talking about opportunity cost and decreasing marginal returns. Decreasing events from "less likely than a lightning strike" to "zero" is already approaching impossibility. What is much more widespread, provable, doable is attacking a lack of accountability for public officials and officers (more generally referred to as "corruption").

The problem with facts is that they actually don't speak for themselves.

The facts at the turn of the century said that women didn't need to vote, that they couldn't handle the responsibility of voting, that they should devote their attention to the household, etc.

There was no fact that women don't need to have a right to vote. Neither is it a fact that women need to have a right to vote. A fact would be "women don't have the legal right to vote" or "women do have the legal right to vote".

They were making an argument because of facts. It all has to do with which facts you find important.

But if you don't agree then you don't agree.

Well I'll be the first one to say facts don't "speak for themselves". But the BLM movement isn't based on any facts other than "here's an incident of police use of force". Whoopty do. Was it justified? If not justified, was it racially motivated? If it was racially motivated, is it systemic? If held unaccountable, is it because of racism? They aren't trying to get answers to these questions. According to BLM every black person the police shoot was shot innocently...but we only blow up certain episodes in the media. Can't have anything to do with the another episode of public official unaccountability *cough Hillary*.

I think it's funny that no matter how hard I try, I keep getting sucked back into this debate. Most people here have very different perspectives on what racism is and where the problem lies. It's probably a waste of everyone's time to rehash that old train of thought.

If one side has an ideology of equality of outcomes and the other side doesn't, things won't get anywhere. That's the practical application of the differences of at least US left vs right, at least as I see it.

Separate note: If Black Lives Matter were truly concerned with saving as many black lives as possible, they'd be marching against fast/processed food and gang membership.

 

[Einherjar86]

There was no fact that women don't need to have a right to vote. Neither is it a fact that women need to have a right to vote. A fact would be "women don't have the legal right to vote" or "women do have the legal right to vote".

Is that a fact?

Coincidentally (or not), arguments against women's suffrage often appealed to the following "fact": "Woman suffrage has been proven a failure in states that have tried it."

Source: http://sfpl.org/pdf/libraries/main/sfhistory/suffrageagainst.pdf

These kinds of arguments always appeal to "facts," whether or not you think they qualify. And yes, that's a fact.

 

[Dak]

Is that a fact?

Coincidentally (or not), arguments against women's suffrage often appealed to the following "fact": "Woman suffrage has been proven a failure in states that have tried it."

Source: http://sfpl.org/pdf/libraries/main/sfhistory/suffrageagainst.pdf

These kinds of arguments always appeal to "facts," whether or not you think they qualify. And yes, that's a fact.

A fact would be that divorce increased since the adoption of suffrage. There is certainly a connection between single parent households and crime. Whether or not these are failures as a result of suffrage would require both determining some causal relation as well as if that is the opposite of a desired outcome, among possibly other things.

 

[Baroque]

What would be a proportionate number of experienced racism? Your statement here is very weird. I agreed that more blacks will be likely to experience racism from cops than whites. This is because even if the percentage of racist white cops is extremely low, the percentage of black cops is so low that even if they were all racist, the odds of racial interactions between black cops and whites would most likely still be lower (since black cops are more likely to in areas with higher black populations anyway).

Why call my statement weird and then fully agree with it? Anyway, no point in discussing this further if you agree, that was all I was trying to show.

I will circle back to talking about opportunity cost and decreasing marginal returns. Decreasing events from "less likely than a lightning strike" to "zero" is already approaching impossibility. What is much more widespread, provable, doable is attacking a lack of accountability for public officials and officers (more generally referred to as "corruption").

I agree that is a problem. Any public official should be accountable for their actions. Police need to be held accountable for murders of any race. But we can work on both. Hold them accountable for murder, corruption, and for racism as well. I'm not talking about trying to figure out which cops are racist and which ones aren't if it isn't clear. But some cops it's just blatant, they make racist statements to their peers, that should be reported and actions should be taken. Or if they kill a subdued or unarmed suspect in cold blood, they should be accountable, race related or not.

According to BLM every black person the police shoot was shot innocently...

This is a strawman unless you have a source.

If one side has an ideology of equality of outcomes and the other side doesn't, things won't get anywhere. That's the practical application of the differences of at least US left vs right, at least as I see it.

There is an ideology of equality of outcomes behind it all. That's why I'm taking the time to bother with discussing this. I want the world to heal, I want peace. Both BLM and ALM want equality. BLM is just being more specific and saying we have to fix this one issue before there can be equality. They're not excluding other lives. They want equality as much as we do.

Separate note: If Black Lives Matter were truly concerned with saving as many black lives as possible, they'd be marching against fast/processed food and gang membership.

They have one specific goal which is to end disproportionate discrimination against blacks by police. There are separate movements that address both of those issues.

http://www.ted.com/talks/ron_finley_a_guerilla_gardener_in_south_central_la?language=en
http://www.homeboyindustries.org/what-we-do/faq/
http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/103287860-story

 

[Baroque]

I want to see more of this:

 

[Dak]

Why call my statement weird and then fully agree with it? Anyway, no point in discussing this further if you agree, that was all I was trying to show.

Because you said something about "proportional racism". Is there a tolerable proportional amount of racism? So if whites and blacks both experienced n percentages of racism from respective race police that would be ok?

This is a strawman unless you have a source.

That's the implicit assertion in quoting the total number of "blacks killed by cops" as a problem in itself, or at least evidence of such.

There is an ideology of equality of outcomes behind it all. That's why I'm taking the time to bother with discussing this. I want the world to heal, I want peace. Both BLM and ALM want equality. BLM is just being more specific and saying we have to fix this one issue before there can be equality. They're not excluding other lives. They want equality as much as we do.

I don't want "equality of outcomes", speaking quite broadly. It's a flawed and deadly ideology.

They have one specific goal which is to end disproportionate discrimination against blacks by police.

Which is a tenuous sort of claim to begin with and certainly not worthy of the attention it is getting. But "if it bleeds, it leads" amirite.

http://www.ted.com/talks/ron_finley_a_guerilla_gardener_in_south_central_la?language=en
http://www.homeboyindustries.org/what-we-do/faq/
http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/103287860-story

Good stuff, and of course relegated to the proverbial backpages of the news if it makes it on a page at all.

 

[Baroque]

Because you said something about "proportional racism". Is there a tolerable proportional amount of racism? So if whites and blacks both experienced n percentages of racism from respective race police that would be ok?

There is no level of acceptable racism. However when one group is experiencing racism disproportionately moreso than another we have to ask ourselves why and seek a solution.

"Anyway, no point in discussing this further if you agree, that was all I was trying to show."

I'm good. Have a nice weekend.