[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.5815[View All]

File: 1594181114017.png (30.97 KB, 400x244, 100:61, chomsky-freedom-of-speech.png) ImgOps Google

In the past, it was often conservatives who tried to suppress viewpoints that they disagreed with, but now it seems that the left/SJWs are the worst offenders.  What can we do to ensure a culture where people feel free to speak their opinions openly and engage in honest debate without fear of attacks (kinetic or otherwise) from angry mobs?

https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4892

https://medium.com/@sarahadowney/this-politically-correct-witch-hunt-is-killing-free-speech-and-we-have-to-fight-it-7ced038d33ae
(mirror: http://archive.is/kQ0I3)
37 posts and 10 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.5899

>>5897
>How the heck are you going to claim that Black Lives Matter is violent despite their claims, yet take the word of a white supremacist at face value?
Easy; Because as far as I know, the Proud Boys haven't gunned down several kids while claiming they're against the killing of minorities.

Bonus points for, like I pointed to in >>5896 , calling out and subsequently kicking out people who violate your purported principles.
Has BLM as an organization condemned the actions at CHAZ and the case of Secoriea Turner saying those responsible are explicitly kicked from the organization and subsequently blacklisted from their events?

If so, I've not heard of it.

>You really need to consider why you keep finding yourself on the side of racists if you do not consider yourself one.
I'd say the same to you.

 No.5900

File: 1595826515059.jpg (54.91 KB, 960x960, 1:1, 102263847_1016403796809579….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5898
You can't just disagree with something that's happening. It's a fact that black people make up 13% of the population but 43% of police shootings.

 No.5901

>>5900
Well, I suppose the question then would be "What's the violent crime rate".

 No.5902

>>5899
>gunned down several kids

Ok, lets go back to this. None of this articles confirm the identities of who was shooting who. Just that there was a shooting. The article from toofab.com even clearly states "It is unclear who is firing the shots." You are basing your entire claim about BLM and the CHAZ on the identity of these people who you cannot confirm. The others are twitter posts and not reliable sources. And even if you could, it's a long way to go from "some protestors have been violent" to "BLM is a secret communist plot."


I've given several sources that show the Proud Boys are a far-right, neo-fascist group that beleives in white nationalism and the "white genocide" conspiracy. And that they have committed racially-motivated violence against people of color. You have not disputed this.

>I'd say the same to you.

Yeah, you could say that. But it would be a dumb thing to do. Unless you and I are operating on completely different definitions of what "racism" is, or you are just claiming Black Lives Matter is "racist" based on bogus anti-white conspiracy theories. I don't want to make assumptions, but the latter seems more likely.

 No.5903

>>5900
>It's a fact that black people make up 13% of the population but 43% of police shootings.
Well, what percentage of murders and other violent crime are committed by black people?  And did you even take a cursory look at that paper?

 No.5904

>>5902
I feel it is safe to presume people at the gates of CHAZ manning the barricade of CHAZ are the guards of CHAZ.
Those twitter posts were cited because they contained images or videos of what happened.

>And even if you could, it's a long way to go from "some protestors have been violent" to "BLM is a secret communist plot."
Ah, yes, strawmanning, the pinnacle of honesty and integrity in argumentation.

No. I do not believe that because several murders and attempted murders have taken place by BLM activists in their protests, they are communists. That is derived from the marxist background and the claimed goals as well as the refusal to address these actions or issues, either to condemn or distance from the organization as a whole.

>I've given several sources that show the Proud Boys are a far-right,
You've given a wikipedia article. I've cited the people directly. Hell, I even cited your own article, for that matter.
They are not a far right neo fascist group that believes in white nationalism and white genocide conspiracy, nor have they committed racially motivated violence against people of color.
You have not once in any of the posts you've made thus far proven this to be the case, nor did your links demonstrate this.

Oh, and I of course have to point out the absurd level of hypocrisy you put on full display for all to see in that you're going to say guys guarding the CHAZ gate aren't affiliated with CHAZ, but apparently a mere accusation without any evidence whatsoever makes you affiliated with fascists, white supremacists, and neo-nazis.

By your logic, if I call you a nazi, are you one?

>Yeah, you could say that. But it would be a dumb thing to do.
I disagree. It seems to be pretty rational to me.
>. Unless you and I are operating on completely different definitions of what "racism" is,
Plausible.
I believe racism is prejudice based upon race.

Are you one of those "it has to be prejudice + power" people?

>or you are just claiming Black Lives Matter is "racist" based on bogus anti-white conspiracy theories.
Or are you hiding behind the name to excuse the action?
I mean, you have ran a lot of defense for child-murderers.

I again question: What's your stance on Trayvon Martin? Would you apply the same doubt? Or is that case murder, because it was by a white man not affiliated with your ideological allies?

 No.5905

>>5901
That would essentially be saying "black people would get shot by the cops less if they did less crimes". Which is racist, and still wrong. Especially considering that police bias against blacks. But even then crime rates do not account for the size of this discrepancy.

My question to you is why are you so adamant about disproving that black people are disproportionately killed by the cops? There's enough evidence to support it and if a group of people are experiencing something you are not privy to, why disregard their claims? It speaks of an ulterior motive to not believe them because you do not wish to make the changes to the system to prevent it.

>>5903
"black people would get shot by the cops less if they did less crimes" is wrong, and racist. As I explained above.

 No.5906

>>5905
>"black people would get shot by the cops less if they did less crimes" is wrong, and racist.
Show me the data that proves that it is wrong.  And how is it racist?  Intuitively, it makes sense that the death-from-cop rate for a population would be proportional to the rate at which that population commits violent crimes.

 No.5907

>>5904
>You've given a wikipedia article.
Wikipedia has sources. I'd be giving you the same sources they are giving.

>I've cited the people directly.
That's meaningless. Anyone can claim they are non-violent and not racist. Their actions speak louder than their words.

>Or is that case murder, because it was by a white man not affiliated with your ideological allies?

Isn't the race of (murderer) George Zimmerman disputed? Not that it matters to me whether or not he's white or of Hispanic descent. No one said Hispanic people can't be racist murders too. But it seems to matter a lot on people on your side of the argument since he's white and not-white when it's convenient. Just to be clear, what race do YOU think (murderer) George Zimmerman is?

 No.5908

File: 1595828561821.jpg (308.24 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, rainbow-dash-scootaloo-zel….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5905
> if a group of people are experiencing something you are not privy to, why disregard their claims?
The only reason to accept a claim is evidence in favor of it.  And officer-involved shootings are well-documented; it's not like black people as group have some secret knowledge that isn't public.

 No.5909

>>5906
It's racist because it's claiming that the disproportionate amount of killings by the police of black people is justified. That black people "deserve" it for being violent people.

And it's wrong because the discrepancy between violent crime committed by race does not account for the much larger discrepancy between who is killed by the police.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

 No.5910

>>5908
They have the lived experience of witnessing police bias and bigotry that's harder to document. That should be obvious.

 No.5911

>>5905
>That would essentially be saying "black people would get shot by the cops less if they did less crimes".
If the rate of violent crime is similar to the rate of those killed by police, that would make sense, yes.
>Which is racist, and still wrong.
Why?
Black people are just as capable of not being violent or obeying the law as anyone else.
If anything, that seems to be an exceptionally biggoted outlook.
>. But even then crime rates do not account for the size of this discrepancy.
How do you know?

>My question to you is why are you so adamant about disproving that black people are disproportionately killed by the cops?
Honestly, for me, it's largely irrelevant.
It's just another item to force you to look at your own actions, in regards to your argumentation; You expect me to blindly take your word for so much, including this, yet refuse to give any such benefit of the doubt to anything I've raised thus far, even when it's been backed up by several videos sources and reports.

>t speaks of an ulterior motive to not believe them because you do not wish to make the changes to the system to prevent it.
That's your own hostile presumption based on your own failure to bother an attempt at understanding your opposition.

If it was my goal to refuse their changes, I wouldn't have to deny their claim. Their proposed changes is absurd on the face of it.
Defunding the police will not help anyone. Least of all black people.

Better solution'd be, as it pertains to the police, remove immunity standards for cities and agencies as it pertains to lawsuit, require law enforcement to be punished to the same degree as would be private citizens as it pertains to false testimony, and end the drug war.
For more general purpose "urban black communities" issues, I'd say get rid of the districting democrats have been happy to maintain for far too long, put in incentives for family households as opposed to single parenthood, and change the education system to require all schools to get the same funding per kid rather than leave the poorest students with the worst funded schools.
Oh, also, get rid of the background checks for occupations not relevant to the background checks. Unless someone's applying to be an armed security guard, I don't care if they were doing something dumb when they were younger. Just because you stole something when you were a teen doesn't mean you are suddenly incapable of flipping patties or selling lawnmowers.

 No.5912

>>5907
Then give me those sources, instead of the nonsensical claims made by Wikipedia that run contrary to the established statements directly set forward by the group, as well as exemplified in their behaviors and actions.

I rather doubt many "white nationalists" say "You're a racist and therefor are booted out", as pointed out in >>5896

>That's meaningless. Anyone can claim they are non-violent and not racist. Their actions speak louder than their words.
This is true.
And the actions done in this instance is to boot out a racist.
As pointed out in >>5896

>Isn't the race of (murderer) George Zimmerman disputed?
He's certainly not black.
>Just to be clear, what race do YOU think (murderer) George Zimmerman is?
Not black. As far as specific detail, honestly, I find "Hispanic" a bit of a dumb racial group since I'm pretty certain Spanish people, that is from Spain, would be called 'white'.
They're certainly as white as the Greeks. And I think they'd be called white, right?
Honestly the whole thing is stupid as fuck, and a prime example why racial identitarianism is a bad idea.

 No.5913

File: 1595828852865.jpg (114.41 KB, 681x960, 227:320, 109297982_3261198640609712….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5911
>Defunding the police will not help anyone. Least of all black people.

You seem to be confused on what "defund the police" actually means. It does not mean get rid of police. It means moving funding AND duties from police to other organizations more equipped to handle those things without the use of violence as the only solution they are trained to use. And it would absolutely help black people. And white people. And anyone who doesn't like getting shot by police.

 No.5914

>>5910
Maybe, but I'm sure there's police who would say that their 'lived experiences' point a different way.
Which is a big part of why it's not something really tangible people can build off of.

 No.5915

>>5914
I'm sure they would claim that, but All Cops Are [strike]Bastards[/strike] part of a corrupt, racist system that benefits them to keep in place.

 No.5916

>>5909
>it's claiming that the disproportionate amount of killings by the police of black people is justified.
Proportionate to what?  Proportionate to level of violent crime makes a lot more sense to me than proportionate to the population size, for the reason below:

>That black people "deserve" it for being violent people.
No, it's not claiming that at all.  Some violent criminals do things that cause officers to justifiably shoot them in self-defense or defense of others.  If you assume that the rate at which suspects do this is the same for all races, then the rate of getting shot by police should be proportional to the rate of committing violent crime.

>And it's wrong because the discrepancy between violent crime committed by race does not account for the much larger discrepancy between who is killed by the police.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
Let me read that and then respond...

 No.5917

>>5912
"Not black" is a pretty large group of people. Also, by "hispanic" I meant Latinx people. Who are clearly not white or black. Sorry for the confusion.

 No.5918

>>5913
If that is the case, I would advise telling that to the protesters, as they seem to be wanting no policing. And are quite vocal about that.

But alright: Let's explore that.
How does defunding the police change their duties?
Because, if you're going to change their duties, surely that should be step 1, not defunding.
I don't say "We need to remove the budget of gas" when what I mean is "We need to change to rail-based transit", for instance. It'd be silly. It'd also put the cart before the horse, resulting in a massive collapse of the logistics system, as suddenly buses do not have fuel, while the rail has yet to actually be set up in place of them.

 No.5919

>>5915
So you say. Their lived experiences says otherwise.

 No.5920

File: 1595829236625.jpg (56.57 KB, 500x375, 4:3, ultros-1584066637001.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5910
>They have the lived experience of witnessing police bias and bigotry that's harder to document. That should be obvious.
OK, now I'm seriously wondering if you have even read the portion of the abstract of the paper that I quoted in >>5898.  I agree that there exists police bias against black people.  We agree on that.  My assertion, backed by the paper, is that this bias does not manifest itself in officer-involved shootings.

 No.5921

>>5919
That's not what that means. Lies told to uphold a corrupt system aren't "lived experience."

>>5918
Well "protestors" aren't a unified group. Lots of people with a lot of different goals are out there. They are only unified in their dissatisfaction with the current system. But "defund the police" is clearly a different statement than "abolish the police". I think this is the stance you are talking about.

No, why would the first step be not defunding. It's saying "Dealing with X is no longer you duty. We are moving the money we used to give you to deal with X to the new "X Managing Department". That's what "defund" means. To take away funds.

 No.5922

>>5913
>It means moving funding AND duties from police to other organizations more equipped to handle those things without the use of violence as the only solution they are trained to use.
Most criminals will not voluntarily turn themselves in.  Violence, or the threat thereof, is necessary to arrest them.

 No.5923

>>5921
>That's not what that means. Lies told to uphold a corrupt system aren't "lived experience."
Why?
What gives you the right to say one set of lived experiences are false, but another is true?

> But "defund the police" is clearly a different statement than "abolish the police". I think this is the stance you are talking about.
True enough, though I find it to be an equally stupid one for the reasons already laid out.
Removing the gas from the tank because you want to use a train instead doesn't help you when you're in the middle of the road with no train in sight.

>No, why would the first step be not defunding.
Because that's what they're saying.
It's their demand after all.
They're not chanting "CHANGE THE PRIORITIES OF THE POLICE" they're explicitly chanting "DEFUND THE POLICE".

I wouldn't say a guy chanting "GET RID OF GASOLINE" wants us to start using the train.
It certainly doesn't look much better when the democrats are out there actively blocking police reform, for that matter.

 No.5924

>>5909
>And it's wrong because the discrepancy between violent crime committed by race does not account for the much larger discrepancy between who is killed by the police.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
Looking at the page you cited, I see this:
>According to the US Department of Justice, African Americans accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008
That is more than their 43% of police shootings.

 No.5925

>>5922
Which is why the police will still deal with criminals.

>>5923
Because one is a lie told to uphold a corrupt system?

>They're not chanting "CHANGE THE PRIORITIES OF THE POLICE" they're explicitly chanting "DEFUND THE POLICE".

But that's you only hearing what you want to hear. They aren't saying completely defund the police. That's "abolish the police" they are saying to decrease spending on the police and increase spending on other programs.

 No.5926

>>5924
You're right. Black people are all violent criminals who deserve to be shot. They are uncivilized brutes who can't exist in our society! You got me!

 No.5927

>>5925
>Because one is a lie told to uphold a corrupt system?
Why? Because you say so?
What if I say that is a lie to uphold a corrupt system?

>But that's you only hearing what you want to hear.
...It's literally their primary go-to chant everywhere they go.
I mean, besides things like "PIGS IN A BLANKET FRY THEM LIKE BACON", "ALL COPS ARE BASTARDS", and so on.

>They are saying to decrease spending on the police and increase spending on other programs.
Well, they've certainly not bothered putting any of the proposed other programs in to their chants, so, once again, I'm not inclined to set fire to the car before the train arrives.
>>5926
Well that's exceptionally racist.

Surely you realize there's plenty of other possible reasons beyond race, right?
Like, culture, for example?
Or the rampant rate of single parenthood?

 No.5928

>>5926
Did you miss my post >>5916 here or you just ignoring it because it refutes your hypothesis?

 No.5929

>>5927
Asking for them to put them in the chants is ridiculous. Chants are intentionally reductive, a quick way to get a larger idea out. That's why the chant is "All Cops Are Bastards" and not "There's no such thing as good cops because all cops are complicit in a racist, corrupt system and therefor part of the problem!" It doesn't really lend itself to being chanted.

But if you ask any of them what "defund the police" and "all cops are bastards" actually means, they'll happily tell you. It's your fault for having a knee-jerk reaction to chants and not asking what they're actually asking for.


>Well that's exceptionally racist.

It was clearly sarcasm. The fact you are entertaining it speaks volumes, though.

 No.5930

>>5929
Alright, so your chant is to prioritize something that doesn't actually help anyone on its own, doesn't suggest any positive growth, and seems only to say "We hate police".
It's a bad chant, then, isn't it?
At least chanting "black lives matter" has a more positive, productive message to it.

Oh, and, if all cops are bad because they're "complicit in a racist corrupt system", then so are you, by your own logic, as someone who is not in active violent revolution but what I would presume is a relatively regular tax-paying citizen.
It's a dumb reductionist argument working from a place of "YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US", which never ends well.

>But if you ask any of them what "defund the police" and "all cops are bastards" actually means, they'll happily tell you.
And every one of them will have a different answer.
You misunderstand my reasoning for questioning you here; It's not because I believe what you say is accurate. it's precisely because I don't.

>It was clearly sarcasm. The fact you are entertaining it speaks volumes, though
That it was your immediate response exemplifies your own bigotry, however.

You presume that, if black people committed more crimes, it could not be because of culture or circumstance, but rather, solely the color of their skin. That they are inherently inferior, if that were true.

This is not the case. ANY race, anywhere, any time, is capable of the same. It's entirely dependent on culture and circumstance, and pointing this out does not automatically mean you're saying black people are inferior, as you so readily presume.

 No.5931

>>5930
It's not a bad chant. All cops ARE bastards. It's just the WHY is longer than will fit in a chant. Likewise "defund the police" is the goal, just not to completely defund the police. The chant is accurate, it just the full statement is too long for a chant. ALL chants work this way. You're only singling this one out because you've been told by someone that it means something it doesn't.

"Complicity" here goes beyond existing in the same society and paying taxes (which by the way, how those taxes are used is part of what "defund the police seeks to rectify)

"All Cops Are Bastards" is specifically attacking the concept of "good cops" and "bad cops". There is no such thing. Just look at the video of George Floyd. If you claim that a "bad cop" killed him, then atleast 3 "good cops" stood around and did nothing. Didn't try to stop him, didn't try to de-escalate. Stood there. And watched him kill a man. THAT kind of complicity.

>You presume that, if black people committed more crimes...

Actually I know exactly why it looks that way. Systemic racism. Lack of opportunities and upward momentum for black people, racial bias in the police system, and hundreds of years of systemic oppression. It's not a mystery. It's also not "black culture". That's not even a thing. "Culture" varies from place to place, people to people, even among racial groups.  

Also, there's a huge problem with your claims that it's "rampant single parenthood". It's a completely circular argument. You claim that lack of parents is the cause of these issues, but then ignore the fact that the police disproportionately locking up and killing black parents would only exacerbate that, if that were true.

So you end up with a situation where your saying black people become criminals because they don't have parents, and then taking parents away because they are criminals. It creates a perfect circle where you don't actually have to change anything and can blame black people for the situation.

 No.5932

>>5931
I disagree. I don't think all cops are bastards.
Likewise, I don't think "defund the police" is a reasonable goal.
Though I do find it funny how you kept insisting that wasn't the point, yet now, it's the "goal" all of a sudden.

Anyway; Like I said, chanting "GET RID OF THE GAS" ten miles before the railyard isn't going to get anyone on your side. And so, it certainly hasn't gotten me.

> If you claim that a "bad cop" killed him, then atleast 3 "good cops" stood around and did nothing. Didn't try to stop him, didn't try to de-escalate. Stood there. And watched him kill a man. THAT kind of complicity.
Alternatively, you could say they weren't good cops, and that there are other good cops [primarily NOT in democrat controlled cities, as seems to always be the case in these events] who would have shoved him off.

The presumption that every single cop would do nothing is unjustified.

> Lack of opportunities and upward momentum for black people, racial bias in the police system, and hundreds of years of systemic oppression.
Maybe, but the Jews seem to have done alright after all that.
But, at least we're in agreement it isn't racist to say there's a higher rate of crime in black communities any more.

> That's not even a thing. "Culture" varies from place to place, people to people, even among racial groups.  
This is true, which is probably a big part of why it's not something I am aware of plaguing rural black communities.

> You claim that lack of parents is the cause of these issues, but then ignore the fact that the police disproportionately locking up and killing black parents would only exacerbate that, if that were true.
Depends on the percentage of black criminals to black population.
I'd be shocked to find out that more than, say, half of black people commit crimes and therefor are unable to be a parent.
Not that it cannot be a major contributing factor.

Nonetheless; Specific subsidies for family units rather than single parents would ease this issue.

>It creates a perfect circle where you don't actually have to change anything and can blame black people for the situation.
What complete and total nonsense.

You can fix things that do not have a malicious individual causing it.
You can fix problems that are the 'fault' of the victims of the problem.
You sure as hell can fix problems that are causing a reoccuring loop of problems.

There's absolutely no reason whatsoever not to try to fix this issue. Don't act like what I suggest here means we shouldn;'t do anything. I'm explicitly suggesting the exact OPPOSITE.

Stop letting your own biggotry write made up stories in your head, and start actually listening to what I've said.

 No.5933

>>5932
>Though I do find it funny how you kept insisting that wasn't the point, yet now, it's the "goal" all of a sudden.

You keep getting confused. You are taking "defund" to mean "remove all funding" instead of "divert some funding."  it can mean either. So please remember that when I (and the majority of people) say "defund the police", we mean to divert some funds from the police to other resources. If you continue to insist I mean removing all funds after this point, you are being intellectually dishonest.

>... isn't going to get anyone on your side.

Lots of people are already on our side. And the people who aren't are probably people swallowing rhetoric from freedom.eagle about how Hillary invented AIDs. In other words, not the kind of people who could really be reasoned with.

>The presumption that every single cop would do nothing is unjustified.

It's not a presumption. It's what we keep seeing, continuously in all of these events that are filmed. All Cops are bad because they are complicit in this system of abuse. Otherwise the "good cops" would be stopping these events.

>Maybe, but the Jews seem to have done alright after all that.

What are you talking about? After the Holocaust? Because that didn't last nearly as long as slavery did. No were they prevented from owning property and opening businesses after WWII ended. Also calling them "the Jews" is not a good look. Try to use "Jewish people".

>There's absolutely no reason whatsoever not to try to fix this issue.

The only way to try and "fix" this "problem" is to stop killing black people  Glad we agree. Now lets defund the police.

 No.5934

>>5933
>What are you talking about? After the Holocaust? Because that didn't last nearly as long as slavery did.
Anti-Jewish sentiment and discrimination against Jews existed in America long before WW2.

 No.5935

>>5933
>The only way to try and "fix" this "problem" is to stop killing black people  Glad we agree.
That's really a race-neutral police brutality issue, not a racism issue.  And it affects puppers as well; just ask /k/!

 No.5936

>>5933
> If you continue to insist I mean removing all funds after this point, you are being intellectually dishonest.
It's not what I said, so I obviously am not insisting it.
I tend to mean what I say.

In this case; My critique is that you're removing something necessary before building its replacement.
Or at least, that is what the chants seem to suggest. As a result, you build opposition, as people realize police is necessary.

>Lots of people are already on our side.
True. It turns out most people are in favor of opposing racism, despite what is so often said about this country.

But thanks to the rioting and lack of practical direction, you're very swiftly losing people. Turns out "peaceful" protest involving destroying innocent people's property, on top of the wanton violence running about, with a side of a lack of practical plan visible, means people're realizing quickly even though what happened was a tragedy, these aren't the people to bring us out of that.

>And the people who aren't are probably people swallowing rhetoric from freedom.eagle about how Hillary invented AIDs. In other words, not the kind of people who could really be reasoned with.
Easy to presume everyone who disagrees with you is a sinner. But it's typically the mark of a cult.

>It's not a presumption. It's what we keep seeing, continuously in all of these events that are filmed.
I've certainly not seen it.
Especially not "every cop" for that matter. Hell, these things again don't seem to be going on at all outside of largely democrat controlled cities to begin with.
So, I have to wonder why my local PD is being dragged through the mud for the crimes of someone else who they in all likelyhood find extreme disagreement with.

>What are you talking about? After the Holocaust? Because that didn't last nearly as long as slavery did.
This might come as a shock to you, but Jews were persecuted throughout history for generations. In fact, I'd make the case it was not only longer, but only more recently reversed, in their case, as the whole "thrown into gas chambers to be murdered" strikes me as being more important.

They've been booted out of territory after territory for generations. All the way up until the Holocaust. The Holocaust was one action among many, and while likley the worst, it was still only a small facet of the extremely long history of oppression and struggle they went through.

> No were they prevented from owning property and opening businesses after WWII ended.
After WWII? No. I'll grant you, that horrific act rather quickly showed people why exactly the practice of racism was bad.
However; They certainly lost that right many times well before WWII.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsions_and_exoduses_of_Jews

> Also calling them "the Jews" is not a good look. Try to use "Jewish people".
Uh... No? That's stupid. It's the same thing. There's no moral distinction between the two terms.

>The only way to try and "fix" this "problem" is to stop killing black people  Glad we agree. Now lets defund the police.
What;s the rate of police killings of black people VS black people killed by other black people?

 No.5937

>>5935
This also.
It's another issue I have with BLM as a whole. They presume the issue is exclusive to black people.

We desperately need police reform; It's why it's a damn shame that the democrats are blocking it.

 No.5938

>>5935
>That's really a race-neutral police brutality issue, not a racism issue

Except the cops are disproportionately killing black (and hispanic) people, as we saw in the chart on >>5900. That's the issue that needs to be addressed first. But I'm all for stopping police from abusing their power to kill white people too. It just happens far less often.

>>5934
>Anti-Jewish sentiment and discrimination against Jews existed in America long before WW2.

Granted. But Jewish people were not literally owned as property for hundreds of years and prevented from owning businesses or even houses for longer after that. The two situations aren't comparable.

>>5937
>It's why it's a damn shame that the democrats are blocking it.

Explain.

 No.5939

>>5936
>My critique is that you're removing something necessary before building its replacement.

It's not necessary. Police will still have funds to do their remaining duties. Remember the little cartoon in >>5913? The police will still have more than enough money to carry their one boulder.

>But thanks to the rioting and lack of practical direction...

We tried to protest peacefully, and you called us unpatriotic and "sons of bitches" for kneeling at football games. Honestly, I don't care what you think about the protests. The protests are against people like you. Who make excuses for systemic racism. All the merchandise in Target is insured. Stop caring about it more than people.

>]I've certainly not seen it.
Because you're white. That's the point.

>but Jews were persecuted throughout history for generations.

Already discussed this in the post above. It's not the same situation as black people, atleast not in the US.

>Uh... No? That's stupid. It's the same thing. There's no moral distinction between the two terms.

Look buddy, I'm just trying to help you out "Jewish people" is a less offensive term than "the Jews". "The Jew" sounds anti-semetic. If you don't believe me, ask a Jewish person. But I honestly don't care if you look racist, you've already said far worse in that department. Just giving you a heads up if not looking like a bigot means anything to you.

>... VS black people killed by other black people?

"Black on black crime" is just a way to dismiss the issue. ALL people are killed mostly by people of their own race. Because people tend to kill their neighbors. It's true for white people, but no one talks about white on white crime in the same way. Because that can't be used to excuse a problem with the system itself.

We are protesting people like you. No wonder you're so irked by it.

 No.5940

>>5938
Democrats blocked the police reform bill from even being discussed or otherwise examined.
Seems fixing the problem would give Trump the win too close to the election.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-police-reform-bill-senate-vote-democrats-debate/

 No.5941

>>5939
>Police will still have funds to do their remaining duties.
Given the massive run of rampant looting, arson, assault, and general mischief throughout all this, I'm skeptical of that.
> The police will still have more than enough money to carry their one boulder.
But you're not STARTING by giving them one boulder.
You're STARTING by removing funding.

>We tried to protest peacefully, and you called us unpatriotic and "sons of bitches" for kneeling at football games.
So that justifies attacking innocent people?

You cannot claim to be for justice when you attack innocent people who have done nothing to you.
That makes you simply a thug, and nothing more.

>The protests are against people like you. Who make excuses for systemic racism.
Ah, right, because how dare I ask questions and examine the issue.
I should just listen and believe, I should just trust you guys as a matter of faith. Obviously the people rioting in the street, looting, stealing, burning things down, attacking people, murdering children, they're the trustworthy ones on all this.

> All the merchandise in Target is insured. Stop caring about it more than people.
Target was not the only place attacked.
Moreover, you clearly have absolutely no idea how insurance works, anyway. Do you honestly think that, in the middle of all these pandemic shutdowns causing a massive drop in buisinesses' income while still leaving them to pay for rents means they're going to be able to afford another setback after their livelihoods were burned down by a bunch of jackasses who you've never done anything to?

Besides; Was Secoriea Turner's life insured? Will that mother get back her child from some bank?

>Because you're white. That's the point.
Oh, so black people are psychic now, capable of seeing every police force in every single city, with every single cop, regardless of distance to them?
I find that pretty hard to believe.

>Already discussed this in the post above. It's not the same situation as black people, atleast not in the US.
Yes, it's a different situation; They were thrown into gas chambers, hounded for centuries, had all their possessions stolen and routinely got kicked out of countries. Yet they somehow managed to become one of the top preforming minorities.
This I would suggest is due to a culture of strong family and support for one another.

>"The Jew" sounds anti-semetic.
I didn't say "the Jew" as though it's a single individual.
I said "Jews", as it's a group of many people.

>ALL people are killed mostly by people of their own race.
Do you have data to prove that? I'm skeptical that there's a major difference for most other races. I'd be rather shocked, for instance, if it's more likely a Jew kills another Jew than someone of any number of different races.

>It's true for white people, but no one talks about white on white crime in the same way.
Probably because it doesn't appear to be happening at such a disproportional rate to their population.

As others have already pointed out to you; The homicide rate is far higher in the black population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide
"According to the US Department of Justice, African Americans accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with Whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for African Americans was almost eight times higher than Whites, and the victim rate six times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of White victims killed by Whites and 93% of African American victims killed by African Americans.[42][43][44]"
13% of the population should be responsible for 13% of homicide. Or at least, close to it.

White people do not appear to be murdering at a higher rate given their population; At 63% of the population, they're only 45% of the homicide percentage.

Why would we care about white-on-white crime when it's so disproportionately lower, compared to black-on-black crime?

>Because that can't be used to excuse a problem with the system itself.
I agree that police overuse of force is a problem; I do not agree that it's a racial one.
I'd like police accountability.
I would rather not defund police before you've got systems to take care of the things they needed the funding for. Frankly, I do not believe police are overfunded for the task at hand.
I think we can fix the issues of police unnaccountability, without putting people at risk.
I think it's also important to work to fix issues that cause black people to be massively over-represented to an insane degree in homicide rates. 13% of the population should absolutely NOT be six times more likely of being killed in a homicide than 63% of the population.

It doesn't strike me as any 'excuse' being made here. I think that is just something you made up in your own head again.
You seem to do that a lot.

 No.5942

>>5939
By the way; Your immediate dismissal of the massive issue of black-on-black violence that's so disproportionate to other races rather proves the earlier point:

Black Lives Matter is not about black lives.
Black lives do not matter to Black Lives Matter.
It's not about death or killings. It's about control.

 No.5943

>>5938
>Except the cops are disproportionately killing black (and hispanic) people ... That's the issue that needs to be addressed first.
It's not disproportional once you account for the difference in violent-crime offending rates, as I explained in >>5916 and >>5924.  So trying to get rid of racism won't have any effect on the number of blacks killed by cops.  If you want to reduce this number, you need to address it as a police brutality issue, not a race issue.  (This is not to say that racism by police officers shouldn't ALSO be addressed.  It should be addressed, but it manifests itself only in lesser forms of force, based on the data from the study cited in >>5771.)

 No.5944

>>5940
There's probably other reasons for that than just not wanting Trump to win. In fact, there's no way to know that even IS a reason. It's just as likely the bill included a bunch of bullshit they were trying to sneak past as a legitimate action.

Yep, I was right. They directly state that the bill is "deeply, fundamentally and irrevocably flawed".

>>5941
>Given the massive run of rampant blah blah blah...

What's that got to do with it? Target isn't the police.

>But you're not STARTING by giving them one boulder.
You're STARTING by removing funding.

The money is for removing the boulders. You can't just do that out of thin air.

>So that justifies attacking innocent people?

Businesses aren't people.

>. Do you honestly think that, in the middle of all these pandemic shutdowns causing a massive drop in buisinesses' income while still leaving them to pay for rents means they're going to be able to afford another setback

Yes. Because that's exactly what insurance is for. Large chains such as Target, Starbucks and Apple use their deep pockets to buy sophisticated policies that cover the entire chain for losses stretching into the millions of dollars. You're trying to make the damage sound worse than it is because you clearly have a bias against the protesters and their cause. The cause of getting the police to stop murdering black people, I remind you.

>Oh, so black people are psychic now

You don't have to be psychic to have pattern recognition. Police do not treat white people the same way they treat blacks. Most because of bullshit statements like you are trying to float about how black people deserve to be killed more.

>Yes, it's a different situation

Glad we agree. The gas chambers thing was only for 4 years. In America black people were literally owned as property for centuries. And then treated as second-class citizens for decades after that. You trying to deny this only shows your own ignorance.

>>5942
>It's not about death or killings. It's about control.

You want it to be about control so you don't have to change anything or admit there's a problem. So you can make an enemy out of black people and claim it's not about race. It's transparent what you are trying to do here.

 No.5945

>>5944
Given they blocked even the debate on it, wherein supposed 'sneak past' things could've been brought up, addressed, and fixed, I'm pretty damn skeptical.

Refusing to even discuss something isn't what people who're actually interested in fixing a problem do.

>What's that got to do with it? Target isn't the police.
Yeah, no shit, which is why it's very strange that these 'protesters' who claim to be interested in justice are out there destroying the property of people who've done absolutely nothing to them.

>The money is for removing the boulders. You can't just do that out of thin air.
And you can't fix problems police are having to deal with out of thin air, either.
Again; You put the cart before the horse, and expect us to still move tons of boulders before we've got any means to do so.
It's a terrible idea.

>Businesses aren't people.
It's not just businesses at his point. Secoriea Turner wasn't a business. But besides that, these are people's livelihoods.

How would you feel if I burned down your house?

>Yes. Because that's exactly what insurance is for.
Not everywhere that is destroyed is Target. That was one of the first things I've said.
But, of course you don't care. it doesn't suit your narrative.
Anything that doesn't suit your narrative should be ignored. So the plenty of shops and businesses that were not corporation-owned you'll just pretend don't even exist.

Again; Great example of how BLM doesn't give a damn about justice. When injustice that goes against their narrative pops up, they'll just plug their ears.

>ou're trying to make the damage sound worse than it is because you clearly have a bias against the protesters and their cause.
Oh, yes, how absolutely awful of me for saying that INNOCENT FUCKING PEOPLE should not be hurt because SOMEONE ELSE did something.

Clearly those businesses are just as capable, and therefor deserve to be destroyed, have people's livelihoods set back if not outright annihilated entirely. It's all worth it for the microscopic amount of black people killed by police.
But, of course, don't you dare talk about all the black people murdered by other black people. That'd make you an evil racist.

>The cause of getting the police to stop murdering black people, I remind you.
So you attack innocent people.

This is not the action of those concerned with justice. Nor, given the murder of people like Secoriea Turner, is it a movement that gives a damn about black lives.

>You don't have to be psychic to have pattern recognition. Police do not treat white people the same way they treat blacks.
Maybe some do. Maybe even most do. The question is, do all of them?
I do not believe that is the case.
Nor do I believe there is any black person anywhere who can claim to be able to say otherwise, as mutants are, as far as I am aware, still something for comics, so nobody's got psychic mind reading yet.

>Most because of bullshit statements like you are trying to float about how black people deserve to be killed more.
Never once at any point throughout this dialogue have I ever said that.
That's something you made up, because you can't actually argue, and your only counter at this point is to make up shit.

Making up shit is the greatest way to tell someone 's not interested in justice, but rather, just looking like they're right and you're wrong.

>Glad we agree. The gas chambers thing was only for 4 years
Way to ignore the rest of my post.

Again; It's inconvenient to you, so you pretend it doesn't exist. Just plug your ears, and then all the critique and argumentation disappear. Then all you have to do is follow the leader.

These are not the actions of a rational person. This is the action of a cultist.

> You trying to deny this only shows your own ignorance.
Never once did that.
That's just yet another thing you've made up.

>You want it to be about control so you don't have to change anything or admit there's a problem.
The problem you cite doesn't justify attacking innocent people.
The reason you claim it's a problem also means that black-on-black crime at a massively disproportionate rate given their population should be a bigger deal. Yet you do not care.

>. So you can make an enemy out of black people and claim it's not about race
Never did that, and it's sure as fuck not my goal. This is just yet another piece of made up bullshit from you on a mountain of made up bullshit.

Honestly, at this point, are you even arguing with me, or are you just arguing with a phantom of your own imagination?

> It's transparent what you are trying to do here.
This coming from the guy who has to make up shit.

 No.5946


 No.5947

I mean. You can just look up the text of the bill online and skip the professional opinion-havers... it's kind of terrible? I mean. It is weirdly bipartisan, but it's also totally pointless. It's the kind of vapid feel good nonsense you usually get from the left.

Like. The bill discourages the formal training of choke holds in police academies, it discourages filing false police reports to cover up murder and constitutional violations, it suggests creating a 12 member senate sub committee to explore what it would be like if they were black, and the attorney general will talk to other attorney generals in the states to talk about how it would be neat if there was a training program or something for police that taught them policing and they will report back with their findings that police academies exist.

In the second part the bill swears to make a pamphlet summarizing their findings on what if they were black and is there training for broad distribution, and also to make it illegal for police to rape people in their custody authorizes the attorney general to offer a grant to states that discourage raping people under police custody.


... actually looking through the amendments the only things that even mention anything plausibly meaningful are amendments that Rand Paul added. There is some minor grant reform. Some additional paperwork added to civil forfeitures that looks like it was struck down since it isn't in the body of the finalized bill unlike the other amendments, but that might just be a bureaucratic thing.

 No.5948

>>5947
My trouble is, all that could've been brought up in a debate on the bill.
Blocking even the debate doesn't address these issues. It's just cowardice.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]