[ 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[Last 50 Posts]

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)

 No.5816

File: 1594209711169.png (215.59 KB, 800x1000, 4:5, pill.png) ImgOps Google

>>5815
>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?
While how the attacks are conducted will vary based on norms, getting attacked for unpopular views -- even if the unpopular views are right (in cases where there is an objective right and wrong) -- might be...expected, I guess.  If there is something different now, it's the possibility of going viral, I think.  If I say something unpopular here -- I figure there are about four people on this board -- I'll get a comment or two, but baring some kind of leak onto a more 'viralable' website, I won't get 1000 comments, phone calls, death threats.

And of course, one can favor institutions that tolerate them.

At least that's one way of answering your question.  The other possible answer involves how to change mainstream institutions to make them more tolerant, so special 'safe spaces' are not needed.  I don't think I know very much about that.

 No.5817

>>5815
>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?

What has to be done is ensuring that people do not feel threatened.  The mobs are angry because they feel threatened.  This is the case regardless of when in history the mob has formed or what their values were.  And this can be seen just as easily today, because we have a lot of angry mobs forming in the US.

Why do leftists and SJWs feel threatened?  For starters a lot of them are literally getting shot at and raped.  Probably the most definitive portion of "leftist/SJWs" is feminists, who believe that women are being targeted and having a really hard time and society needs to adjust to assist women.  Shortly following that crowd is the active Black Lives Matters movement that says black people are getting shot at too frequently, and a movement that isn't actually named that says queer people are getting raped too frequently.  These groups are all very actively threatened and so they are being very loud about it.

And what does this group often call for?  Sweeping changes, reversals of fortune, sometimes executions.  As it so happens, this threatens a separate section of the US, a section of the US that is also barely hanging on financially, has to deal with crime, and only if they're lucky manages a stable lifestyle.  A group that believes things are bad, but they'll get better if we avoid change, or in some cases reverse recent changes.  And so a counter-movement is galvanized to prevent everything the first groups are asking for because none of those things help this second group, they only make the second group less well off in the name of equality.

And I do want to stress that the second group would be less well off, this isn't simply a perception.  You can argue that in the grand scheme of things the amount less well off they are isn't important because it's small, or because it's small relative to the amount the first group would be elevated, or in the worst and most violent cases that it isn't important just because fuck the second group they've been better off for a long time and they get to suffer for a while.  But for the majority of what the SJWs are asking for, the second group is having to lose something, even if some of those cases the loss is just "certainty of the future".

And what people do during all of this is try to pick out very specific things that they think is threatening them.  Guns are threatening us.  Immigration is threatening us.  Lack of insurance is threatening us.  Excessive bureaucrocy is threatening us.  So they support idealogies that remove those specific things because they believe that then they will no longer be threatened.  And in some cases they might be right, in others they might be wrong, but in all cases they're missing some more fundamental points.  Removing guns does not remove murderers, removing immigration does not prevent crime or restore jobs.  Having insurance does not inherently provide health care.  Removing regulations allows both good and bad things to prosper.

The most important point here?  All of these things further assume that people are willing and ready to play by the rules that have been set, and people won't own guns anyway, or cross the border anyway, or undercut health care anyway, or bully people out of doing what they want anyway.  There are reasons people are doing these things and that is what needs to be addressed.  People are threatened enough to want to own guns and illegally cross the border, why?  What inspires someone to murder another person?  What's so awful about Mexico that people are smuggling their kids up here?  These are what need to be looked at, because no amount of control is going to fully prevent murders and border hopping.

To bring it back around to the topic, we need to ensure people don't feel threatened, and that doesn't mean stamping things out, it means lifting everything up.  The body of the country needs to be kept healthy in order for people to feel unthreatened, and keeping the body of the country healthy is not done by removing every illness that pops up.  If the nation is so prosperous that people are not afraid of their future, then no opinion expressed should be threatening and no one should be threatened by any opinion.

 No.5818

File: 1594248818556.png (50.42 KB, 400x304, 25:19, tumblr_opi06z80Y91r5kws5o4….png) ImgOps Google

It's not really an aspect of either the "left" or the "right" that makes people want to silence the people who disagree with them, it's an aspect of Authoritarianism and I think we can all agree that both sides have their fair share of Authoritarians.

There's nothing that we can really do to completely ensure that nobody will ever try to silence their opposition, that's just kind of a fact of life. The most we can do is make sure the people who do that don't make it into positions of power where they can force it. How to keep specific types of people out of power is it's own discussion.

 No.5819

>>5815
>now it seems that the left/SJWs are the worst offenders

Not even close. Prominent left wing thinkers are discussing the issue openly and examining potential hypocrisy by their allies. It has been years since I've seen conservative or especially alt-right think masters examine their own movements with any kind of a critical eye. Sometimes they'll examine adjacent movements that they disagree with, but never their own. They'll also never acknowledge any potential credibility to liberal grievances no matter how much it is in line with their own philosophy but will rather hold it up as an example of gross hypocrisy because somebody agrees with them on one thing but not everything.

I'd provide counter examples on the left but you've graciously done it for me.

 No.5823

>>5819
I suppose it depends on where you go, but, my experience is very much the reverse.
And of course, it certainly needs to be said, one side seems to be actively censoring, pushing for doxing and 'canceling', violence, and general intimidation to get what they want.

Maybe the alt right'd do that if they had power. But, since they don't, they don't do that. Which in turn makes it seem like SJWs are the bigger issue at the moment.

 No.5827

>>5823
"SJW" are not a thing, first of all. It's a vague label used (mostly by the right) to insult anyone left of center who cares about any sort of social topic. If you actually want to discuss this topic you're going to have to clarify who you mean when you say "SJW" and what, exactly you think this group is preventing the discussion of.

 No.5828

>>5827
So long as you'll say the same sort of thing for terms like "far right" or "alt right".

Anyway; I'd define them as the far left types obsessed with the idea of "social justice" in a manner that means it is acceptable to violate the rights of others, censor wrongthink speech, harass and demand the firing of those who disagree, and seem for whatever reason to be in control of enough major institutions to demonstrate significant power in regard to this particular aspects.

 No.5829

>>5828
"far right" can be vague, but "alt right" is a very specific group of people with shared ideology and goals.

"Social justice" is a GOOD thing. It means ensuring equality for all social groups. Those who fight for that are not the bad guys.

You've used a lot vague terms here, again. What rights do you think are being violated by "sjws"? What thoughts are you classifying as "wrongthink"? Who has been fired for disagreeing with something and not for their own actions being wrong? All vague, and if we are going to discuss this topic you need to clarify these things.

 No.5831

>>5829
"far left" can be vague, but "SJW" is a very specific group of people with shared ideology and goals.

>"Social justice" is a GOOD thing. It means ensuring equality for all social groups. Those who fight for that are not the bad guys.
I fundamentally disagree. The fact that these guys engage in shit like censorship, targeted harassment and 'canceling', and actively seem to push for inequal treatment of others based solely on characteristics like race or gender places me firmly in opposition to them, as they are authoritarians of the worst variety.

>What rights do you think are being violated by "sjws"?
Most prominently, free speech. Though there are others. Especially as it pertains to equal treatment in regards to employment or 'platforming'.
Your voice can be devalued on a subject by SJWs purely because of the color of your skin. That is not right. That's plain and simple objective racism.

>What thoughts are you classifying as "wrongthink"?
Quite literally anything that disagrees with the ideology. Anything that calls into question of it, or opposes it. Calling out the blatant racism, for example, would certainly get you canceled by these types were they able to.

>Who has been fired for disagreeing with something and not for their own actions being wrong?
This statement is rather telling. I suspect you're simply going to classify anyone guilty of wrongthink as having committed a 'bad action'.

 No.5832

>>5831
>>5831
>"far left" can be vague, but "SJW" is a very specific group of people with shared ideology and goals.

No. It isn't. Everything you gave as a definition for "SJW" was completely vague and could apply to a wide variety of people and movements. Alt-Right is specific white supremacist groups. It isn't up for debate or discussion who or what they are.

>The fact that these guys engage in shit like censorship, targeted harassment and 'canceling', a

You have failed to give any concrete examples of any of this. Go ahead.

>>5831
>Most prominently, free speech.
Again, no examples of "free speech" being violated by who. I'm giving you a chance to give specific examples of perpetrators and victims.

>Quite literally anything that disagrees with the ideology.

An ideology you've so far failed to describe or elaborate on. These are all just vauge assertions.

>Calling out the blatant racism, for example

The people most often called "SJWs" are the people who are most vocally against racism and for equality. So calling out racism would not get you "canceled" by them. If anything, it would get the far-right on your case.

> I suspect you're simply going to classify anyone guilty of wrongthink as having committed a 'bad action'.

Only if you fail to specifically site what "wrongthink" even is.

 No.5833

>>5832
>It isn't up for debate or discussion who or what they are.
Why? Because you say so?

You are not the arbiter of truth.
I have certainly seen the phrase alt right use in a wide sweeping arc before. It seems to cover everyone from actual fascists, to liberals, to even full leftists who don't like the current swing of racist identity politics.

Why is it that you get to be the arbiter of what is vague and what is concrete?
Why should I accept your interpretation over my own?
What makes yours somehow better?

 No.5834

File: 1594946450919.jpg (247.29 KB, 729x585, 81:65, 1498845511508.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5816
>getting attacked for unpopular views -- even if the unpopular views are right (in cases where there is an objective right and wrong) -- might be...expected, I guess.
Depends what you mean by "attacked" and "expected".  I'd say that, in an ideal society, we can be civil to everyone, even if we are strongly opposed to their views.

>>5817
I haven't thought of anything specifically to reply, but I just wanted to mention that I did read your whole post and found it quite interesting and definitely worth reading.

>>5818
>it's an aspect of Authoritarianism and I think we can all agree that both sides have their fair share of Authoritarians.
Yes, I definitely agree.  I guess, for whatever reason, authoritarians on the left have more power and/or willingness to suppress discussion nowadays than authoritarians on the right.

 No.5835

File: 1594947537042.jpg (310.58 KB, 1140x798, 10:7, kzeu24iad2051.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5827
>who you mean when you say "SJW"
In the OP, I basically meant left-leaning folks who focus a lot on 'identity politics' (in contrast to leftists who are more concerned with class).

>what, exactly you think this group is preventing the discussion of
It varies.  But the exact nature of what speech is suppressed isn't really the important part.  The fact that it is happening at all is to be lamented.
See also: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firing-innocent/613615/

 No.5836

>>5833
No, because it's a set thing that doesn't need to be debated. You don't have to debate me over what a "chair" is. It has a set definition and parameters. The Alt-Right is a specific set of white nationalists and white supremacists that operate mostly online. Like, this is a dumb argument.

>>5835
What, exactly constitutes "identity politics", then?

But context is important. What if the speech supposedly being suppressed is calls to commit violence and genocide against certain groups? It's not lamentable that such speech isn't being allowed. It poses a real danger to real people.

Freedom of speech does not mean someone is free to say whatever they want without consequence. Nor does it guarantee you a platform.

 No.5837

>>5836
In that case, I'll save the exact same thing for SJW.

>What, exactly constitutes "identity politics", then?
What exactly constitutes white supremacy?

 No.5838

File: 1594953812868.png (185.75 KB, 480x451, 480:451, f16cfq8kgd351.png) ImgOps Google

>>5836
>What, exactly constitutes "identity politics", then?
I'll go with this, from dictionary.com: "political activity or movements based on or catering to the cultural, ethnic, gender, racial, religious, or social interests that characterize a group identity".  Note that this usually involves pitting people against each other on the basis of these identities, and it detracts from major economic issues facing the country.  And it can also divide Americans on issues that should instead unite them, like reforms to policing to cut down on police brutality and unnecessary shootings.  

See also: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/1/24/gao-identity-politics/

>What if the speech supposedly being suppressed is calls to commit violence and genocide against certain groups?
OK, well as to genocide, you have a point: Some speech is just so beyond the pale that it calls into question the fitness of speaker to serve in certain jobs.  But as for calls to violence: Those who think that abortion is murder would consider advertising abortion services to be calls to violence.  And yet, people on both sides of the abortion debate generally manage to get along with each other.  So, I'll submit this: Even if you personally and those of your political tribe consider certain to be really bad, that alone is not adequate justification to try to suppress speech.

>The Alt-Right is a specific set of white nationalists and white supremacists
The Wikipedia page on "Alt-right" says:
>The term is ill-defined, having been used in different ways by various self-described "alt-rightists", media commentators, and academics.

 No.5839

>>5837
>In that case, I'll save the exact same thing for SJW.

Then it should be easy for you to give me concrete examples of who you mean. WHich you still haven't.

>What exactly constitutes white supremacy?

Oh sorry, most people know what that phrase means. Its the belief that white people are superior to other races of people.

 No.5840

>>5839
Patreon and Twitter.
Those are the two easiest examples. Deplatforming is a constant thing on those two sites, not based on a violation of the rules or a sense standard that applies to everyone, but rather, purely a political motivation. this is rather easily evidenced by the fact that calling for violence if you are on the left is perfectly acceptable, on both platforms.
See black lives matter for examples of that. Though, given their treatment in regards to right wing organizations accused of calling for violence, let alone engaging in it, an even standard would mean that anyoneon those signs and support of black lives matter would end up getting kicked off in much the same way as one might for supporting, say, the Proud Boys

 No.5841

>>5838
I don't see that as an issue for supposed "SJWs". People get labeled "SJWs" for a wide variety of things. SPeaking out of racial issues, sexism, gay rights, trans rights, income inequality... Really the people trying to label others as "SJWs" are the most consistent group; young white men. So I don't see "SJWs" as being divided by identity politics. They are coming together with people unlike them the most, while the anti-SJWs are homogeneous and fighting against that.

>Those who think that abortion is murder would consider advertising abortion services to be calls to violence.  

That's only true with a VERY loose definition of "violence". Which is an issue that can be solved with consensus on what constitutes what.

And like I said, freedom of speech does not guarantee you freedom from the repercussions of your actions, nor does it guarantee you a platform. Freedom of speech means that people are free to say "I don't want you saying that on my platform or in places that I run."

>>5840
See above. Someone with freedom of speech owns Twitter and Patreon. And they do not want to allow certain things on their platform. Freedom of speech does not guarantee you a platform. You aren't being prevented from saying something because one platform isn't allowing you. You can find another that does allow it. Or start your own platform.

>See black lives matter for examples of that.

Black Lives Matter very explicitly denounces violence. The actual organization anyway, not whatever boogey man you've made them out to be in in your right wing circles.

 No.5842

File: 1594956811704.jpg (658.15 KB, 798x1999, 798:1999, Whiteness-graphic.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5839
>Oh sorry, most people know what that phrase means. Its the belief that white people are superior to other races of people.
I am not even sure that is the commonly accepted standard, honestly, as I've seen plenty of different interpretations.
But in this context, what constitutes viewing one race has superior?

Could I call, for example, the Smithsonian white supremacist, because of their comments about a supposed white culture that allows for things like being on time, or hard work?
Would people who advocate for affirmative action, as though minorities cannot achieve the scores required for a college scholarship on their own be considered white supremacists?
Your definition doesn't seem to require seeing that as a good thing, after all, just that people believe it.

Well, I'd suggest there are quite a few people who seem to act as though minorities are incapable of anyone to the level of their white counterparts, but view that as a bad thing needed to be corrected.

 No.5843

>>5841
Do you believe that companies are incapable of violating people's rights? I do not have such a view.

Rights are not only guaranteed by the state. If they were, companies wouldn't be liable for countless different things. A company could enslave someone, for example, forcing them to work at gunpoint.
That is not what occurs.
I think it's safe to say that our morality is not dictated by solely by the state's actions. Individuals, of which companies are ultimately composed, can violate your rights.

>Black Lives Matter very explicitly denounces violence
The rioting, vandalism, arson, theft and at this point outright murder rather disproves this notion.
And, quite frankly, I've had people here, on this site, saying the violence done by Black lives Matter was justified, so I don't think I really believe you from the get-go.

 No.5844

>>5841
>I don't see that as an issue for supposed "SJWs". People get labeled "SJWs" for a wide variety of things.
People get labeled alt right for a wide variety of things.
Speaking out against racism, sexism, authoritarianism, inequality and unfairness, erosion of civil liberties, and so on.

this is why I suggest about it is a very similar term to SJW.
If you can use alt right, you shouldn't have an issue with my using SJW. Unless you're okay with hypocrisy I suppose
People get labeled alt right for a

 No.5845

>>5843
It's got nothing to do with being a business or not. Freedom of speech does not guarantee you a platform. Not one is obligated to let you use their platform that they've created in any way they don't like. Your'e still free to use another platform or create your own.

>The rioting, vandalism, arson, theft and at this point outright murder rather disproves this notion.

Except those aren't the actions of Black Lives Matter the organization. BLM has stated numerous times they are against violence. Not all protesters are part of BLM and it's dishonest to say that they are to try and smear the movement.

> I've had people here, on this site, saying the violence done by Black lives Matter was justified,

I'm pretty sure this isn't true. People have said that destruction of property is a valid form of protest, because it is. But if it's happened on this board then go ahead and link to where they did so.

>>5844
No-one would confuse someone for being in the alt-right for "speaking out against racism" because the alt-right is a racist movement. Unless that person was accusing something meant to bring racial equality as being unjust to white people and ignoring centuries of systemic racism and the justification for those things just to push the idea of some sort of fictional anti-white agenda. But someone doing that isn't necessarily alt-right, just a racist.

>>5842
>Could I call, for example, the Smithsonian white supremacist

Well that poster doesn't say that white people are superior to other races necessarily, so no, it isn't "white supremacist". It is however kind of racist to assign certain traits to people by race, even white people.

The way you describe affirmative action shows you do not actually understand why it exists and what it's for. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not one of the doofuses I mentioned earlier who believe in some anti-white agenda being the reason for it and explain.

"Affirmative action" exists not because minority people are incapable of being on the same level as white people intellectually and professionally, but because systemic racism exists and keeps a disproportionate amount of minority people from ever getting the chance to. I can provide you with some videos and sources with more information on the topic of racial discrimination in schooling and in workplaces if you'd like to know more.

 No.5846

File: 1594968168445.jpg (408.7 KB, 750x555, 50:37, XArWICu.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5845
>Freedom of speech does not guarantee you a platform. Not one is obligated to let you use their platform that they've created in any way they don't like.
While legally the First Amendment's prohibition of viewpoint discrimination applies only to the government, there are good reasons to extend similar ethical expectations or even outright legal impositions on large corporations.  The electric company shouldn't be able to turn off your power if you say something they don't like.  Internet infrastructure companies like Cloudflare shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to website that they dislike.  For sites like Facebook and Twitter, there are good arguments on both sides as to how much they should refrain from viewpoint discrimination.

 No.5886

>>5845

>Except those aren't the actions of Black Lives Matter the organization.
They are. Their founders have openly come out and expressed themselves as "trained marxists". The movement is a front for a communist insurrection.

>BLM has stated numerous times they are against violence.
BLM does not practise what they preach. They organized the riots, attacked innocents, and even killed children in CHAZ.

>No-one would confuse someone for being in the alt-right for "speaking out against racism" because the alt-right is a racist movement.
What would you define as "alt-right"? Because the Democrats have been lobbying for years, even during the Obama administration, to change the definition of "racism" to include nonsense about "privilege". Nowadays "racist" is just being abused as a throwaway term for people you disagree with.

>"Affirmative action" exists not because minority people are incapable of being on the same level as white people intellectually and professionally, but because systemic racism exists and keeps a disproportionate amount of minority people from ever getting the chance to.
Partially correct, but this notion of "systemic racism" is false. The problem is that a lot of minority cultures, especially those in poor areas, are firmly rooted in opposing authority and "the man". This in turn causes a lot of children who grow resentful of order and authority, and in some areas to even turn to lives of drugs and crime, creating a toxic self-sustaining culture. This is the single biggest roadblock for most minorities, and this is why affirmative action exists. Ultimately however, the problem can only truly be solved by changing minority culture, which nowadays a large demographic seems to oppose.

 No.5887

>>5886
>The movement is a front for a communist insurrection.

I'm gonna need you to source that.

>They organized the riots, attacked innocents, and even killed children in CHAZ.

This is just outright false. The CHAZ was under much more danger from white supremacist groups like the Proud Boys while The CHAZ existed.  Again, you need to back this up with some sources or evidence.

>the Democrats have been lobbying for years, even during the Obama administration, to change the definition of "racism" to include nonsense about "privilege"

What evidence to you have of that? Do you have reports of any democratic politician saying anything of the sort?

> but this notion of "systemic racism" is false

Everything after this is sheer nonsense. Also there's no "minority culture" That's an incredibly reductive and frankly bigoted way to look at things. Culture varies from place to place, people to people, even within racial groups. People don't turn to drugs and crime to "stick it to the man". They do it because they don't have any other opportunities. Everything you just said is so incredibly ignorant and bigoted I'm not sure this isn't a parody.

 No.5888

>>5887
Remind me; Was it white supremacist gate guards at CHAZ who gunned down two unarmed black teens?
I think if you're going to claim there was a larger danger of "white supremacists" you're going to at least need to back up your own claim.
Otherwise, you look like a massive hypocrite. What, you get upset at someone else saying things that are easily conformable through a basic google search, but at the same time think throwing out a complete nonsense conspiracy theory is perfectly fine?

https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/'

Black Lives Matter is not a legitimate organization. Hell, it's entire premise, that is to say the foundation, was built from the ground up on a false narative about a lawful and ultimately justified defensive shooting that they were more than happy to lie about to get people who don't do their own research to believe was some grand injustice.
It wasn't. But it's a great example of the problem with BLM as an organization.
No tactic is wrong. No action is immoral. Nothing matters but the end goal. Lying is fine. Deceiving people is fine. Attacking people is fine. Murdering people is fine. All for the utopia, all for the "greater good".

The problem with utopians is they leave a trail of bodies in their wake.
With BLM, it's people like Dorn, the two kids at CHAZ, Secoriea Turner, who prove without any doubt whatsoever that they do not give a damn about black lives.

 No.5889

>>5888
>Was it white supremacist gate guards at CHAZ who gunned down two unarmed black teens?

Source please.

>>5888
>I think if you're going to claim there was a larger danger of "white supremacists" you're going to at least need to back up your own claim.

Sure!

https://www.thedailybeast.com/seattle-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone-visited-by-violent-proud-boys

https://www.kptv.com/news/proud-boys-member-arrested-after-breaking-probation-terms-by-traveling-to-seattle-protest-zone/article_ad2b48d2-b6e1-11ea-8632-731208530cce.html

https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/man-critically-injured-chop-shooting-says-he-was-victim-racial-attack/ZHXSJZLBEBGSHOUOO3FMWKQGFI/

White supremacist groups were clearly going there to try and cause violence. I'm not sure why you would deny this.

Now the link you gave me doesn't answer any of my questions. I wanted proof that they "organize riots" "attacked innocents" and "killed children". All the article you've linked to do is say the co-founder of BLM has studied Marxism, as well as many other ideologies and forms of government. It does nothing to prove they've done any of the actions you claim they have.

You seem to have no idea what BLM movement is actually about or why it exists. But this narrative you've constructed could not be more ignorant. Not only that, it makes you appear bigotted, which I'm sure isn't something you want if in fact you are not a bigot. Everything you just said is a fictitious bogey man you or someone else has constructed to obscure the real issues.

Come on, man. Don't be irrational.

 No.5890

>>5889
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/29/chop-chaz-shooting-seattle-police-free-zone

The Proud Boys are not a white supremacist organization.

That article quite literally has the guy say; "“So basically I was shot by, I’m not sure if they’re ‘Proud Boys’ or KKK,” said Young. “But the verbiage that they said was hold this ‘N-----’ and shot me.”"
And of course, it's literally nothing but his own assertion, besides. But, hey, maybe; You've got one single man, then.
Bonus points for saying that they “pushed him onto the hood of the car,” and supposedly they “And they stood over top of me and continued to fire,", which doesn't bode well for my trusting him since several point-blank shots aren't exactly likely to leave a witness.
Incidentally, did you realize that last one was a Brietbart link, once you click "show full story"?

>You seem to have no idea what BLM movement is actually about or why it exists.
I know why they claim it exists.
I also know this is quite obviously and abundantly false once you actually look in to what they are doing.
It does not match up their supposed claims.

I do not care if cultists devoted to the new religion of "black lives matter" consider me a "racist". That does not make me so, and frankly, I'm of the opinion the large bulk of BLM is racist anyway.

And as to "irrationality", I find it far more "irrational" to stand on the corpses of people your movement has directly caused the death of, while claiming that 'black lives matter'.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/you-killed-a-child-armed-protesters-in-georgia-fire-into-car-striking-8-year-old-girl/ar-BB16oPB3

 No.5891

Timestamp 1:50;
"Oh you're not dead, huh?" followed by a single gunshot.

Sure as hell looks like they murdered someone in cold blood.

 No.5892

>>5890
>The Proud Boys are not a white supremacist organization.

They are far-right neo-fascist group that started out of the alt-right and believes in white nationalism and the bogus "white genocide" conspiracy theory. They were also present in considerable numbers at the "Unite the Right Rally", which was a white supremacist event. They've openly advocated for and committed crimes against their dissenters and people of a color, who they believe are a threat to their way of life.

I'm not sure what about any of that suggests they aren't white supremacist.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys)

No, I did not notice that. But I can remove it if it's from Breitbart, they aren't a reputable source.  But there's several accounts by people in the CHAZ about these white supremacists. If Breitbart is reporting on it, then that means that that even white supremacists groups themselves are taking credit for doing it. Here's a youtube video with a very good interview with a person within the CHAZ about the issues they had with White Supremacists. (interview starts at (12:01)

>I know why they claim it exists.
You don't get to just decide they are for something else based on bogus conspiracy theories. Calling "black lives matter" a "new religion" just shows how ridiculous you are being. Black people are disproportionately killed by the police and this is an issue. This is THE issue. If you are not a racist, then you should be supporting this movement to help people of color in society. That should be more important to you. You shouldn't be trying to convincing people they are secretly communists trying to start a new religion because 1) that's ridiculous and unsubstantiated and 2) the very idea is in itself a contradictory if you understood communism!

This video you gave me does not have any way to determine who is shooting who and for what reason. It's not concrete and judging by the name of the youtube account that uploaded it, meant to sensationalize and spread fear. If this was such a big problem you should be able to provide some news articles.

 No.5893

File: 1595818955043.jpg (85.08 KB, 960x542, 480:271, proud_boys_and_joe_bola_10….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5892
They are most certainly not fascists, and the claim that they're "white nationalist" is at best a conspiracy theory, at worst plain delusion.
Many groups were present at the "Unite the Right" rally early on, as it was believed to be a "unite the right" rally, not a white supremacist gettogether.
As to advocating for "crimes against their dissenters", leaving aside I don't believe you, it rather glares horrifically as hypocritical of you to say.
You are the guy who seems to be praising BLM and Antifa, after all.

> But there's several accounts by people in the CHAZ about these white supremacists.
You had literally one, from a guy whom I am not inclined to believe at his word, given his story doesn't make logical sense.

Moreover; this does not change the objective FACT that the guards at the CHAZ murdered an unarmed teen and left another in critical condition.
They are just as bad as their worst presumptions of the police. Certainly, I've not heard anyone holding them to account at the CHAZ or in any BLM group. Hell, you're more than happy to do absolutely everything you can to cover for the thugs.

>You don't get to just decide they are for something else based on bogus conspiracy theories.
Again you display your hypocrisy
You are more than happy to do the same for the Proud Boys.
What makes your suppositions more valid than my own? Why are you the word of God, but I am someone to be doubted?

Anyway; I do not consider it to be a "bogus conspiracy theory". I consider it an objective reality based upon their action.
It sure as fuck seems like the life of Secorlea Turner didn't matter to them.

>Black people are disproportionately killed by the police and this is an issue.
Maybe so, but you know what?

In the course of this riot, more've died.
Leaving aside all the other destruction they've thrown about.

> If you are not a racist, then you should be supporting this movement to help people of color in society.
No.
It is precisely because I am not racist, that I am in opposition to a movement that seems to have a fuckton of biggots supporting it, doesn't seem to give a damn about the supposed lives it proposes to believe 'matter', and doesn't seem to have a single solution that'd actually help anyone.

>(an idea that in itself is contradictory if you understood communism!
Only if you do not consider marxism to be the religion.
When I call it a "religion" I do not mean they serve a God. I mean that their beliefs are founded on faith and little else. That they act as a cult would. That they are not rational, and are more than willing to commit atrocities in the name of their utopian dream.
It's why communists have got the worst most inhumane and ultimately tyrannical regimes throughout history, still going on in the case of China.

> It's not concrete and judging by the name of the youtube account that uploaded it, meant to sensationalize and spread fear.
Do you know what an ad hominem is?

The video shows a shooting start, and then well after the threat was neutralized, there is one final shot following the word "Oh you're not dead, huh?".
There was no evidence anywhere that the two children murdered by these thugs were armed.
There is no evidence anywhere to suggest there was cause to fire at them.

IF you would like to provide some, go for it. But, so far, all you've done is make shitty claims without backing any up, while having the hilarious audacity to complain about people giving their own reasons for believing what they do.

When you finally were pushed to giving sources, all you had was the nonsensical story from one guy that contradicts itself, and the accusation of 'white supremacy' to a group who is quite abundantly clearly and demonstrably not.
Ironically, going right back in to my "cult" thing earlier.

 No.5894

>>5893
What are you basing the claim they "are not fascists" on? All evidence points to them being fascists and white supremacists. The wikipedia article I linked has provided numerous sources.

Also, Unite the Right rally was explicitly a white supremacist rally. It was designed with that in mind. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally)

This is all easily Googlable stuff, man.

>You are more than happy to do the same for the Proud Boys.

I literally provided a wikipedia link and used the sources that they use. You have no provided any sources for your claims except for one grainy video with no way to identify who is in the video and who they are associated with.

>Only if you do not consider marxism to be the religion.

Communism as an ideology is expressly against religion. Do you even know what communism is?

>Moreover; this does not change the objective FACT that the guards at the CHAZ murdered an unarmed teen and left another in critical condition.

>The video shows a shooting start, and then well after the threat was neutralized, there is one final shot following the word "Oh you're not dead, huh?".

Show me where in the video you can prove that the people shooting are associated with BLM or the CHAZ and the people who were shot were not provoking the attack. Or even that the video hasn't been doctored or staged. One video isn't enough to prove your claim. I'm giving you the opportunity to provide more substantial evidence.

 No.5895

>>5894
What they say, do, and advocate for.
Sound like run-of-the-mill American patriots. Hardly fascistic for that.

As to "white supremacist", that's just obviously objectively not true, just looking at their group. See the picture I posted just above. That was of the Proud Boys.
They're most certainly not all white.

>Also, Unite the Right rally was explicitly a white supremacist rally. It was designed with that in mind
Likely true, however it was not clearly telegraphed as such, and so many ended up there not realizing until after. Which is why they tended to disappear after the first day or two.
Incidentally; This is what Trump was specifically referring to, and outright said, in his speech at the time. He quite explicitly said that he was NOT talking about the neo-nazis or white supremacists, despite what many dishonest people tried to frame it as;
"And you had people, and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. OK? "

>I literally provided a wikipedia link and used the sources that they use. You have no provided any sources for your claims except for one grainy video with no way to identify who is in the video and who they are associated with.
Remind me: What colleges consider Wikipedia to be a valid source for fact-based papers?

I could not give less of a flying fuck what wikipedia has to say.
It's chock full of partisan hacks who're more than happy to use their political biases to push their agenda. To outright lie about others in a dishonest manner because it suits their ends. It's worth less than shit on toiler paper to me. Even with this economy.

Wikipedia is not something I would consider a source; The definition of fascism is something a whole lot of idiots will take and abuse horrifically. Same for "far right".
They do not care what the term means, it's just something to smear their enemies.

Again; I'll go off what they've actually said plenty of times prior.
https://officialproudboys.com/proud-boys/whoaretheproudboys/
"Minimal Government
Maximum Freedom
Anti-Political Correctness
Anti-Drug War
Closed Borders
Anti-Racial Guilt
Anti-Racism
Pro-Free Speech (1st Amendment)
Pro-Gun Rights (2nd Amendment)
Glorifying the Entrepreneur
Venerating the Housewife
Reinstating a Spirit of Western Chauvinism"
These are very much not fascistic items, nor are they naziish or racist for that matter.

>Communism as an ideology is expressly against religion. Do you even know what communism is?
Re-read what I said.
My stance is not that communism doesn't dislike other religion: All religion dislikes other religion.

My stance is that communism acts as a religion.

>Show me where in the video you can prove that the people shooting are associated with BLM or the CHAZ and the people who were shot were not provoking the attack.
Mate, it;'s quite literally the GATE GUARDS
AT THE BARACADES

Are you seriously telling me that the PEOPLE AT THE PHYSICAL BARICADE, THE PEOPLE DEFENDING THE BARACADE, are not the gate guards of CHAZ?
Like really, man?

Fine, but if you're going to be that obtuse:
Give me objective factual evidence that there is actually institutional racial discrimination, explicitly cited as the reason for a given action, and not just the statistics that say there's a higher rate. After all, if we're going to say "Well, maybe those CHAZ gate guards were actually white supremacists in disguise" I think it's fare to say "Well, maybe those statistics that say black people are killed by police at a higher rate is because black people commit more crimes".
Fair's fair, right?
>. Or even that the video hasn't been doctored or staged. One video isn't enough to prove your claim.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53224445

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8442895/Double-shooting-Seattles-CHAZ-protest-zone-leaves-one-man-dead-wounded.html

https://toofab.com/2020/06/29/16-year-old-shot-killed-chop-seattle/

https://www.king5.com/article/news/crime/seattle-shooting-capitol-hill-chop-chaz/281-48392a9e-d760-42f3-9469-c99466ed7a9f

https://twitter.com/MarcusKulik/status/1277573910255374339?s=20

https://i.imgur.com/Dyv13uJ.png

https://twitter.com/BrandiKruse/status/1277582787344601094

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfdC9ojrF4I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpLANIpZxdU&feature=youtu.be&t=284

I wonder how little evidence it takes for you to say, for instance, Trayvon Martin was murdered compared to all this.
But, hey, I guess it's perfectly fine as long as it's people of the right politics to murder other kids.
Fuck consistency, right? As long as it's BLM murdering children, there's no problem at all. It's only an issue when it's a cop, or it's white people.

 No.5896

File: 1595822756727.jpg (30.66 KB, 397x648, 397:648, extremes.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5894
https://officialproudboys.com/proud-boys/we-are-not-alt-right/

Incidentally, from your own wikipedia source hilariously enough;
"Unite the Right rally
Main article: Unite the Right rally

In June, McInnes disavowed the planned Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.[41] However, Proud Boys were at the August 2017 alt-right event, which was organized by white supremacist Jason Kessler.[91] Kessler had joined the Proud Boys some time before organizing the event.[92][93][94] McInnes said he had kicked Kessler out after his views on race had become clear.[41] After the rally, Kessler accused McInnes of using him as a "patsy" and said: "You're trying to cuck and save your own ass."[21] Alex Michael Ramos, one of the men convicted for the assault of DeAndre Harris which took place at the rally, was associated with the Proud Boys and Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights.[95] "

Totally the action of white supremacist fascists.

 No.5897

>>5896
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?

You really need to consider why you keep finding yourself on the side of racists if you do not consider yourself one.

 No.5898

File: 1595823288316.jpg (475.57 KB, 640x992, 20:31, 1489663094832.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5892
> Black people are disproportionately killed by the police and this is an issue.
I disagree, based on the study cited in >>5771:
>On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings.

 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 ]