EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1486
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On November 26 2014 11:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote: lmao, are you really going with 'the government's anit-poverty program is really a conspiracy against blacks'? it's not a conspiracy. black people earn less on average, cities get gentrified, poor people have to leave. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 26 2014 11:20 Nyxisto wrote: it's not a conspiracy. black people earn less on average, cities get gentrified, poor people have to leave. While there are problems with gentrification, gentrification is a good thing and is, and should be, encouraged. The opposite is "keep poor areas poor", which is really, really stupid. Actually, you can see the opposite of gentrification in Ferguson now. Property values will fall, those who can afford to move out will, and the town will decline. Yeah, it'll be cheaper to live there, but the cheapness won't offset everything you've lost. Edit: I mean really, the idea that whites are going to subsidize blacks to lower white's home prices, to make room for whites in St. Louis so whites can turn a profit on real estate there... holy fucking shit that's crazy!! | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 26 2014 11:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote: lmao, are you really going with 'the government's anit-poverty program is really a conspiracy against blacks'? That's an idiotic response. It's not a conspiracy. But leaving a violent ghetto to go out to a suburb when being given money by the government to do so is NOT an indication that the suburb doesn't have problems and it is NOT an indication that it's a highly desirable "location for blacks to live" in a vacuum. Are you trolling at this point? How can you not see what a dumb fucking argument you've been making? Or are you going to resort to the classic jonny-tactic of saying, "I was just saying that Ferguson was better than a crime-ridden ghetto" instead of standing behind your innuendo? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 26 2014 11:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The opposite is "keep poor areas poor", which is really, really stupid. Actually, you can see the opposite of gentrification in Ferguson now. Property values will fall, those who can afford to move out will, and the town will decline. Yeah, it'll be cheaper to live there, but the cheapness won't offset everything you've lost. Edit: I mean really, the idea that whites are going to subsidize blacks to lower white's home prices, to make room for whites in St. Louis so whites can turn a profit on real estate there... holy fucking shit that's crazy!! Nope that's not the opposite. You could work on making an area prosperous again without transplanting the ghetto and its inhabitants to the suburbs. Ironically the white people in Ferguson probably left to return to the gentrifying St. Louis center. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On November 26 2014 11:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote: While there are problems with gentrification, gentrification is a good thing and is, and should be, encouraged. The opposite is "keep poor areas poor", which is really, really stupid. Actually, you can see the opposite of gentrification in Ferguson now. Property values will fall, those who can afford to move out will, and the town will decline. Yeah, it'll be cheaper to live there, but the cheapness won't offset everything you've lost. Edit: I mean really, the idea that whites are going to subsidize blacks to lower white's home prices, to make room for whites in St. Louis so whites can turn a profit on real estate there... holy fucking shit that's crazy!! The idea that this is planned is conspiracy-ish, but that is the effect. Gentrification results in rich people moving into the city while poor people are forced out. In the United States it happens to be the case that many black people are poor and many white people are rich, resulting in more division between the races. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23263 Posts
On November 26 2014 10:51 xDaunt wrote: Citing to Ben Carson and other black conservatives is kind of a cop out. They are more likely to reiterate what I'm saying than anything else. How many black folks actually agree with them? Given the treatment that prominent black conservatives get from the black community, I'm guessing not many. If anything, my impression is that your position on this matter is more representative of the general black community's than anyone else's, which is the basis for my earlier point. If I'm mistaken, feel free to set me straight. I haven't personally reviewed all of the information so I can't say one way or the other. But I don't think he should of been indicted or not based on anything other than the facts/evidence. So done. You can stop with the implicit "your one of those non-sane black people (which as far as I know is all of them EDIT: except the conservative ones who are a 'cop out'), if not, correct me then" comments. Ok Ron Johnson, no he's probably a cop out too, how about the people in the "Black in America" show I linked? How about Russel Simmons? How about several black people I interact with pretty regularly? Who counts? Who's a 'cop out'. I don't want to keep trying to guess who will break you from this totally non-racist position that 'there are probably some sane members of the black community, I just haven't heard from them' and that the implicit notion doesn't have anything to do with the type of sources you bothered to check and that the sources you chose doesn't reflect how you would arrive at such a conclusion... The not so latent racism in the posts is ridiculous, so I hope you're done with it. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 26 2014 11:31 IgnE wrote: That's an idiotic response. It's not a conspiracy. But leaving a violent ghetto to go out to a suburb when being given money by the government to do so is NOT an indication that the suburb doesn't have problems and it is NOT an indication that it's a highly desirable "location for blacks to live" in a vacuum. Are you trolling at this point? How can you not see what a dumb fucking argument you've been making? Or are you going to resort to the classic jonny-tactic of saying, "I was just saying that Ferguson was better than a crime-ridden ghetto" instead of standing behind your innuendo? That's the first fair point you've made in this discussion. Perhaps if you expanded upon it with some data / evidence? Edit: Though I should also point out that there were local efforts to aid in integration, and that the migration of blacks into Ferguson took place over decades. So I still find it more than a bit suspect to argue that Ferguson was really oppressive, just less oppressive than St. Louis, and blacks were willing to leave St. Louis to escape oppression, but weren't willing to leave Ferguson. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 26 2014 11:36 Nyxisto wrote: The idea that this is planned is conspiracy-ish, but that is the effect. Gentrification results in rich people moving into the city while poor people are forced out. In the United States it happens to be the case that many black people are poor and many white people are rich, resulting in more division between the races. Gentrification can be complex. It's not just rich move in, poor forced out. The poor who are there should see employment, safety and education opportunities rise, and landowners should see asset price appreciations and governments should have larger budgets to work with. As a whole, this sort of activity should reduce disparities. Giving poor blacks a subsidy largely paid for by richer whites isn't going to exacerbate the existing problem, unless you get some major unintended consequences. | ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
On November 26 2014 11:34 IgnE wrote: Nope that's not the opposite. You could work on making an area prosperous again without transplanting the ghetto and its inhabitants to the suburbs. Ironically the white people in Ferguson probably left to return to the gentrifying St. Louis center. It's not about the buildings or the area, it's the people that make a place a shitty place to live. If you move shitty people to a nicer house they are still shitty people. You can't fix people with macro policies they have to fix themselves on a micro person by person level through accountability. Rioting looting and arson are pretty much the opposite of making the community better. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 26 2014 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote: I haven't personally reviewed all of the information so I can't say one way or the other. But I don't think he should of been indicted or not based on anything other than the facts/evidence. So done. You can stop with the implicit "your one of those non-sane black people (which as far as I know is all of them EDIT: except the conservative ones who are a 'cop out'), if not, correct me then" comments. It doesn't take more than a cursory review of the evidence to see the obvious truth that Wilson shouldn't have been charged. Ok Ron Johnson, no he's probably a cop out too, how about the people in the "Black in America" show I linked? How about Russel Simmons? How about several black people I interact with pretty regularly? Who counts? Who's a 'cop out'. I don't want to keep trying to guess who will break you from this totally non-racist position that 'there are probably some sane members of the black community, I just haven't heard from them' and that the implicit notion doesn't have anything to do with the type of sources you bothered to check and that the sources you chose doesn't reflect how you would arrive at such a conclusion... I don't know, you tell me who counts. I only point out that black conservatives shouldn't count because they are clearly outliers when compared to the black community as a whole, which also generally treats black conservatives fairly badly. If it makes you feel better, you should know that my scorn is not limited to black people on this matter. I find the race-baiting commentary from white liberals (such as this one whom I discussed earlier) to be even more disdainful. I at least understand why black people are prone to being upset at this decision (even if those feelings are ill-founded). People like Kendzior have no such excuse. The not so latent racism in the posts is ridiculous, so I hope you're done with it. And so we circle around to the same old argument: any criticism of the black community is racist. Well, I'm sure that I've addressed that particular issue plenty of times. No need to revisit it now. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13964 Posts
No excuse for something they had 3 months to plan for. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23263 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
babylon
8765 Posts
Yeah, racism is a problem. Yeah, police brutality is a problem. Yeah, the prosecution didn't seem like it wanted to prosecute, and the kid didn't have to die, and maybe the cop is an awful, racist person. But that doesn't mean he shot recklessly at that very instant, and if there's not enough to prove that he did, then I think it's kinda shitty to stake out a potentially innocent cop simply to make an example of a systemic problem. I know why it's happening, but the whole affair's kinda left a bitter taste in my mouth. Even people I would normally consider pretty level-headed about these sorts of things are blowing their casket over it, as if they have all the information they need to decide the cop's guilt, and they just ... don't. (I guarantee you most people who are talking about this right now haven't even read all the reports released by McCulloch.) If there's one good thing to come of this, I just hope people realize it's a good idea to put cameras on cops when they're on the job. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On November 26 2014 16:05 babylon wrote: Don't have all the evidence from the case, can't say for sure whether he should've been indicted or not, just gotta trust the grand jury on this one. I really don't think I know better than them; if they don't think there's enough to indict, then I'm just gonna go with it. Yeah, racism is a problem. Yeah, police brutality is a problem. Yeah, the prosecution didn't seem like it wanted to prosecute, and the kid didn't have to die, and maybe the cop is an awful, racist person. But that doesn't mean he shot recklessly at that very instant, and if there's not enough to prove that he did, then I think it's kinda shitty to stake out a potentially innocent cop simply to make an example of a systemic problem. I know why it's happening, but the whole affair's kinda left a bitter taste in my mouth. Even people I would normally consider pretty level-headed about these sorts of things are blowing their casket over it, as if they have all the information they need to decide the cop's guilt, and they just ... don't. (I guarantee you most people who are talking about this right now haven't even read all the reports released by McCulloch.) If there's one good thing to come of this, I just hope people realize it's a good idea to put cameras on cops when they're on the job. Well said. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On November 26 2014 16:05 babylon wrote: Yeah, racism is a problem. Yeah, police brutality is a problem. Yeah, the prosecution didn't seem like it wanted to prosecute, and the kid didn't have to die, and maybe the cop is an awful, racist person. But that doesn't mean he shot recklessly at that very instant, and if there's not enough to prove that he did, then I think it's kinda shitty to stake out a potentially innocent cop simply to make an example of a systemic problem. Is anyone in this thread advocating that an innocent man be convicted as a martyr for a systematic system? Personally I lean more towards xDaunt's position that (a) systematic racism exist and must be fixed but (b) making the Brown case an all or nothing affair is foolish. Having said that I also subscribe to these views: (a) Grand Jurries have a history of not convicting cops and are generally used by District Attorneys who wish to shift the guilt off themselves and onto 'the community' (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-25/fergusons-grand-jury-problem). (b) the after-the-fact release of all evidence was a nice move towards transparency but (c) in the context of the way I know criminal law is practiced in America -- I mean that from the second hand experience of several friends who are either AUS Attys, Criminal Defense Attys or are in the get-innocent-people-out-of-prison-by-throwing-their-convictions-on-weak-ass-charges-out-game, the cop received a tremendous -- tremendous amount of leniency in the way both the case was presented to the Grand Jury and the way the GJ itself reacted to him. There are people -- mysteriously of a higher melanin concentration than the average American -- who have been put in jail for pretty long time on much flimsier evidence. (d) I again kind of agree with xDaunt that a good defense attorney would probably had a hung jury but the fact that GJ didnt even meet the relatively light burden for pressing forward an actual trial is disappointing and finally (e) despite what some of you claim re "evidence was presented", actually the way things work in the GJ is not the way it would work before a trial jury. I mean sure it looks like the DA would have dragged his feet on the case before anyone anyway, but at least in theory he would have zealously advocated on behalf of the state to convict him and again that reeks of unnecessary leniency. (f) finally it stinks that a relatively small amount of looting -- in the context of all the protests that have broken out across America and that do not involve looting, suggesting that perhaps in Ferguson there really was a decision by some elements to use protests as cover -- will allow the conversation to shift from "How come black people face a different criminal justice system than everyone else" to "How come black people like to riot" | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23263 Posts
will allow the conversation to shift from "How come black people face a different criminal justice system than everyone else" to "How come black people like to riot" And away from the residents who put their own safety on the line to try to guard the stores from looters. A lot of people did and are doing the right thing, but the ones who are acting like idiots (many of them just common criminals taking advantage of a clear opportunity regardless of the social costs) get all the attention, although they do get to share the teargas pretty evenly. | ||
| ||
