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.
On April 30 2015 10:15 zlefin wrote: Millitron -> killing per capita in Germany are about 1/6 of the US rate. edit: changed ratio
Ok? That doesn't affect what I said. All I've been saying is that the difference is not just that US cops are thugs and German cops are saints.
I agree there's definitely some problematic departments. I wouldn't be surprised if the US has more shitty cops than Germany. But quality of police is probably not the only source of the discrepancy.
On April 30 2015 04:04 Sermokala wrote: The quote in my post mentioned people not waiting for due process or an investigation. A lack of information doesn't give people the right to treat their assumptions as fact.
Gh are you saying you don't understand what I'm saying or that you don't understand why that is how policy is?
That's fine, but I don't see why you are defending their actions or trying to justify the victim had a broken spine. Even the chief of police has said the officers acted improperly, did not follow procedure and failed to get him medical attention.
Hate and anger doesn't help anyone. Understanding the situation and using your empathy to help even the worst of us change just a little can make all the difference.
Well protesting peacefully was obviously not getting the results we are looking for i.e. less dead black people by police officers. It's easy for us to be like "whoa, violence and rioting is wrong," when we aren't the ones who have been on this end of it, until now.
It would have been like England telling the 13 colonies that they don't like "our tone," after the Boston massacre. And then decrying violence and civil disturbance at the outbreak of the revolution. Sure, it's easy for them to say, but at a certain point violence really is the only answer.
Does rioting now improve the perception of black people by police in this country? Probably not, but what they were doing before obviously wasn't working either.
I'm not familiar with Baltimore. Was there a history of trying and failing to reform the police?
Back to a point that was brought up pages and pages ago at this point, but rioting is the only thing that even put the police brutality in Baltimore into the national consciousness. There had been about two weeks of peaceful protesting, as members of the community were awaiting an explanation for how the kid whose spine was severed and whose voice box was crushed suffered those wounds in police custody. None of that mattered. Pretending like peaceful protests that appeal to a corrupt system for reform through a corrupt power structure actually work is putting your head in the sand. Rioting probably has almost no effect on the "perception of black people" in this country. It's just a polarizing lens which exposes people's biases through their reaction to said rioting.
And why does this event need to be in the national consciousness? That Baltimore has a shitty, corrupt, and brutal police department is a Baltimore problem that has to be solved by Baltimore.
Maybe as a way to put more eyes on the Baltimore leadership to exert social pressure and force change when there otherwise wouldn't be any? Do you think the riots are unknown in Baltimore? Alternatively do you think that everyone in Baltimore was paying attention to the peaceful protests? I feel like you didn't really think about your question very hard; it comes off as a flippant dodge.
On April 30 2015 04:04 Sermokala wrote: The quote in my post mentioned people not waiting for due process or an investigation. A lack of information doesn't give people the right to treat their assumptions as fact.
Gh are you saying you don't understand what I'm saying or that you don't understand why that is how policy is?
That's fine, but I don't see why you are defending their actions or trying to justify the victim had a broken spine. Even the chief of police has said the officers acted improperly, did not follow procedure and failed to get him medical attention.
Hate and anger doesn't help anyone. Understanding the situation and using your empathy to help even the worst of us change just a little can make all the difference.
Well protesting peacefully was obviously not getting the results we are looking for i.e. less dead black people by police officers. It's easy for us to be like "whoa, violence and rioting is wrong," when we aren't the ones who have been on this end of it, until now.
It would have been like England telling the 13 colonies that they don't like "our tone," after the Boston massacre. And then decrying violence and civil disturbance at the outbreak of the revolution. Sure, it's easy for them to say, but at a certain point violence really is the only answer.
Does rioting now improve the perception of black people by police in this country? Probably not, but what they were doing before obviously wasn't working either.
I'm not familiar with Baltimore. Was there a history of trying and failing to reform the police?
Back to a point that was brought up pages and pages ago at this point, but rioting is the only thing that even put the police brutality in Baltimore into the national consciousness. There had been about two weeks of peaceful protesting, as members of the community were awaiting an explanation for how the kid whose spine was severed and whose voice box was crushed suffered those wounds in police custody. None of that mattered. Pretending like peaceful protests that appeal to a corrupt system for reform through a corrupt power structure actually work is putting your head in the sand. Rioting probably has almost no effect on the "perception of black people" in this country. It's just a polarizing lens which exposes people's biases through their reaction to said rioting.
And why does this event need to be in the national consciousness? That Baltimore has a shitty, corrupt, and brutal police department is a Baltimore problem that has to be solved by Baltimore.
Maybe as a way to put more eyes on the Baltimore leadership to exert social pressure and force change when there otherwise wouldn't be any? Do you think the riots are unknown in Baltimore? Alternatively do you think that everyone in Baltimore was paying attention to the peaceful protests? I feel like you didn't really think about your question very hard; it comes off as a flippant dodge.
Call it a dodge if you want, but it is not flippant. What's going on in Baltimore is a problem of Baltimore's own making. I certainly don't feel any responsibility for the city's dysfunction, and I absolutely resent being accused of racism whenever the masturacebators decide to take these local incidents national and blame whitey for the woes of the black community. That this narrative has emerged once again is particularly offensive in this instance given that Baltimore is a city largely run by black people (and by enlightened democrats since 1967). Of course, this inconvenient fact would never get in the way of the agenda of someone like GreenHorizons or YoureFired.
On April 30 2015 04:04 Sermokala wrote: The quote in my post mentioned people not waiting for due process or an investigation. A lack of information doesn't give people the right to treat their assumptions as fact.
Gh are you saying you don't understand what I'm saying or that you don't understand why that is how policy is?
That's fine, but I don't see why you are defending their actions or trying to justify the victim had a broken spine. Even the chief of police has said the officers acted improperly, did not follow procedure and failed to get him medical attention.
Hate and anger doesn't help anyone. Understanding the situation and using your empathy to help even the worst of us change just a little can make all the difference.
Well protesting peacefully was obviously not getting the results we are looking for i.e. less dead black people by police officers. It's easy for us to be like "whoa, violence and rioting is wrong," when we aren't the ones who have been on this end of it, until now.
It would have been like England telling the 13 colonies that they don't like "our tone," after the Boston massacre. And then decrying violence and civil disturbance at the outbreak of the revolution. Sure, it's easy for them to say, but at a certain point violence really is the only answer.
Does rioting now improve the perception of black people by police in this country? Probably not, but what they were doing before obviously wasn't working either.
I'm not familiar with Baltimore. Was there a history of trying and failing to reform the police?
Back to a point that was brought up pages and pages ago at this point, but rioting is the only thing that even put the police brutality in Baltimore into the national consciousness. There had been about two weeks of peaceful protesting, as members of the community were awaiting an explanation for how the kid whose spine was severed and whose voice box was crushed suffered those wounds in police custody. None of that mattered. Pretending like peaceful protests that appeal to a corrupt system for reform through a corrupt power structure actually work is putting your head in the sand. Rioting probably has almost no effect on the "perception of black people" in this country. It's just a polarizing lens which exposes people's biases through their reaction to said rioting.
And why does this event need to be in the national consciousness? That Baltimore has a shitty, corrupt, and brutal police department is a Baltimore problem that has to be solved by Baltimore.
Maybe as a way to put more eyes on the Baltimore leadership to exert social pressure and force change when there otherwise wouldn't be any? Do you think the riots are unknown in Baltimore? Alternatively do you think that everyone in Baltimore was paying attention to the peaceful protests? I feel like you didn't really think about your question very hard; it comes off as a flippant dodge.
Call it a dodge if you want, but it is not flippant. What's going on in Baltimore is a problem of Baltimore's own making. I certainly don't feel any responsibility for the city's dysfunction, and I absolutely resent being accused of racism whenever the masturacebators decide to take these local incidents national and blame whitey for the woes of the black community. That this narrative has emerged once again is particularly offensive in this instance given that Baltimore is a city largely run by black people (and by enlightened democrats since 1967). Of course, this inconvenient fact would never get in the way of the agenda of someone like GreenHorizons or YoureFired.
it's pretty funny, when the reporter on NPR brought this up today with their interviewee's they went full black elite apologist.
What point are you two lovely gentlemen trying to make, exactly? If you're arguing that disenfranchisement is not personally your fault, then this is rather self-evident and not much of a point to be made. If you're arguing that by completely disregarding disenfranchisement as the underlying cause of resentment you should not be considered racially biased, then you're wrong.
Baltimore's problem is Baltimore's fault? The fuck does that even mean? If you're suggesting any number of failed policies enacted by municipal authorities is the sole cause of disenfranchisement in an American city, then you're wrong. This isn't a problem limited to Baltimore. This is a nationwide problem that has existed for decades.
You feel threatened because you're white and feel mislabeled, misrepresented, marginalized, diminished and stereotyped? Let that shit sink in for a while. I don't even need to explain the rest of it. If you're quick to minimize these events as some sort of race-baiting, black supremacist, white-bashing nonsense, then chances are you are, indeed, racially biased. Really think about your worldview for a moment. Do you actually believe all people are created equally? That the teenage Baltimore thug, had he been born into your family, with your opportunities, would be any different than you, yourself? When you're driving down the road and you see a black dude riding low with some rims, does some racist shit come into your head? It probably does.
I don't know either of you personally. I'm not going to call either of you racists, but when you just blindly disregard the plight of the disenfranchised, perceive everything as an attack, I mean it's nothing short of hypocritical and the irony there is almost laughable. Honestly, guys, open your fucking eyes. If this is the future of the conservative movement, then we'll be no better off fifty years from now than we are today.
On April 30 2015 04:04 Sermokala wrote: The quote in my post mentioned people not waiting for due process or an investigation. A lack of information doesn't give people the right to treat their assumptions as fact.
Gh are you saying you don't understand what I'm saying or that you don't understand why that is how policy is?
That's fine, but I don't see why you are defending their actions or trying to justify the victim had a broken spine. Even the chief of police has said the officers acted improperly, did not follow procedure and failed to get him medical attention.
Hate and anger doesn't help anyone. Understanding the situation and using your empathy to help even the worst of us change just a little can make all the difference.
Well protesting peacefully was obviously not getting the results we are looking for i.e. less dead black people by police officers. It's easy for us to be like "whoa, violence and rioting is wrong," when we aren't the ones who have been on this end of it, until now.
It would have been like England telling the 13 colonies that they don't like "our tone," after the Boston massacre. And then decrying violence and civil disturbance at the outbreak of the revolution. Sure, it's easy for them to say, but at a certain point violence really is the only answer.
Does rioting now improve the perception of black people by police in this country? Probably not, but what they were doing before obviously wasn't working either.
I'm not familiar with Baltimore. Was there a history of trying and failing to reform the police?
Back to a point that was brought up pages and pages ago at this point, but rioting is the only thing that even put the police brutality in Baltimore into the national consciousness. There had been about two weeks of peaceful protesting, as members of the community were awaiting an explanation for how the kid whose spine was severed and whose voice box was crushed suffered those wounds in police custody. None of that mattered. Pretending like peaceful protests that appeal to a corrupt system for reform through a corrupt power structure actually work is putting your head in the sand. Rioting probably has almost no effect on the "perception of black people" in this country. It's just a polarizing lens which exposes people's biases through their reaction to said rioting.
And why does this event need to be in the national consciousness? That Baltimore has a shitty, corrupt, and brutal police department is a Baltimore problem that has to be solved by Baltimore.
Maybe as a way to put more eyes on the Baltimore leadership to exert social pressure and force change when there otherwise wouldn't be any? Do you think the riots are unknown in Baltimore? Alternatively do you think that everyone in Baltimore was paying attention to the peaceful protests? I feel like you didn't really think about your question very hard; it comes off as a flippant dodge.
Call it a dodge if you want, but it is not flippant. What's going on in Baltimore is a problem of Baltimore's own making. I certainly don't feel any responsibility for the city's dysfunction, and I absolutely resent being accused of racism whenever the masturacebators decide to take these local incidents national and blame whitey for the woes of the black community. That this narrative has emerged once again is particularly offensive in this instance given that Baltimore is a city largely run by black people (and by enlightened democrats since 1967). Of course, this inconvenient fact would never get in the way of the agenda of someone like GreenHorizons or YoureFired.
Who pays for the black politicians' campaigns in Baltimore? Who are the political backers behind a black mayor that calls rioters thugs? I actually don't know, I'm asking.
So would you have said that the problems going on in Selma or Birmingham are problems of their own making? Or was that different because black civil rights leaders at the time weren't "blaming whitey" for the woes of the black community? I haven't really been watching the news and don't really care to, but it seems odd to me that your reaction to the circus is to feel personally under attack because of some riots in Baltimore. I don't feel any responsibility for the city's dysfunction either but I don't resent the protesters. Then again I don't get called a racist very often.
BALTIMORE — A prisoner sharing a police transport van with Freddie Gray told investigators that he could hear Gray “banging against the walls” of the vehicle and believed that he “was intentionally trying to injure himself,” according to a police document obtained by The Washington Post.
The prisoner, who is currently in jail, was separated from Gray by a metal partition and could not see him. His statement is contained in an application for a search warrant, which is sealed by the court. The Post was given the document under the condition that the prisoner not be named because the person who provided it feared for the inmate’s safety.
The document, written by a Baltimore police investigator, offers the first glimpse of what might have happened inside the van. It is not clear whether any additional evidence backs up the prisoner’s version, which is just one piece of a much larger probe.
Gray was found unconscious in the wagon when it arrived at a police station on April 12. The 25-year-old had suffered a spinal injury and died a week later, touching off waves of protests across Baltimore, capped by a riot Monday in which hundreds of angry residents torched buildings, looted stores and pelted police officers with rocks.
Police have said they do not know whether Gray was injured during the arrest or during his 30-minute ride in the van. Local police and the U.S. Justice Department both have launched investigations of Gray’s death.
On April 30 2015 11:32 always_winter wrote: What point are you two lovely gentlemen trying to make, exactly? If you're arguing that disenfranchisement is not personally your fault, then this is rather self-evident and not much of a point to be made. If you're arguing that by completely disregarding disenfranchisement as the underlying cause of resentment you should not be considered racially biased, then you're wrong.
Baltimore's problem is Baltimore's fault? The fuck does that even mean? If you're suggesting any number of failed policies enacted by municipal authorities is the sole cause of disenfranchisement in an American city, then you're wrong. This isn't a problem limited to Baltimore. This is a nationwide problem that has existed for decades.
You feel threatened because you're white and feel mislabeled, misrepresented, marginalized, diminished and stereotyped? Let that shit sink in for a while. I don't even need to explain the rest of it. If you're quick to minimize these events as some sort of race-baiting, black supremacist, white-bashing nonsense, then chances are you are, indeed, racially biased. Really think about your worldview for a moment. Do you actually believe all people are created equally? That the teenage Baltimore thug, had he been born into your family, with your opportunities, would be any different than you, yourself? When you're driving down the road and you see a black dude riding low with some rims, does some racist shit come into your head? It probably does.
I don't know either of you personally. I'm not going to call either of you racists, but when you just blindly disregard the plight of the disenfranchised, perceive everything as an attack, I mean it's nothing short of hypocritical and the irony there is almost laughable. Honestly, guys, open your fucking eyes. If this is the future of the conservative movement, then we'll be no better off fifty years from now than we are today.
Obviously not to be taken seriously, cuz 4chan. But, I'm guessing something along this line. + Show Spoiler +
On April 30 2015 04:04 Sermokala wrote: The quote in my post mentioned people not waiting for due process or an investigation. A lack of information doesn't give people the right to treat their assumptions as fact.
Gh are you saying you don't understand what I'm saying or that you don't understand why that is how policy is?
That's fine, but I don't see why you are defending their actions or trying to justify the victim had a broken spine. Even the chief of police has said the officers acted improperly, did not follow procedure and failed to get him medical attention.
Hate and anger doesn't help anyone. Understanding the situation and using your empathy to help even the worst of us change just a little can make all the difference.
Well protesting peacefully was obviously not getting the results we are looking for i.e. less dead black people by police officers. It's easy for us to be like "whoa, violence and rioting is wrong," when we aren't the ones who have been on this end of it, until now.
It would have been like England telling the 13 colonies that they don't like "our tone," after the Boston massacre. And then decrying violence and civil disturbance at the outbreak of the revolution. Sure, it's easy for them to say, but at a certain point violence really is the only answer.
Does rioting now improve the perception of black people by police in this country? Probably not, but what they were doing before obviously wasn't working either.
I'm not familiar with Baltimore. Was there a history of trying and failing to reform the police?
Back to a point that was brought up pages and pages ago at this point, but rioting is the only thing that even put the police brutality in Baltimore into the national consciousness. There had been about two weeks of peaceful protesting, as members of the community were awaiting an explanation for how the kid whose spine was severed and whose voice box was crushed suffered those wounds in police custody. None of that mattered. Pretending like peaceful protests that appeal to a corrupt system for reform through a corrupt power structure actually work is putting your head in the sand. Rioting probably has almost no effect on the "perception of black people" in this country. It's just a polarizing lens which exposes people's biases through their reaction to said rioting.
And why does this event need to be in the national consciousness? That Baltimore has a shitty, corrupt, and brutal police department is a Baltimore problem that has to be solved by Baltimore.
Maybe as a way to put more eyes on the Baltimore leadership to exert social pressure and force change when there otherwise wouldn't be any? Do you think the riots are unknown in Baltimore? Alternatively do you think that everyone in Baltimore was paying attention to the peaceful protests? I feel like you didn't really think about your question very hard; it comes off as a flippant dodge.
Call it a dodge if you want, but it is not flippant. What's going on in Baltimore is a problem of Baltimore's own making. I certainly don't feel any responsibility for the city's dysfunction, and I absolutely resent being accused of racism whenever the masturacebators decide to take these local incidents national and blame whitey for the woes of the black community. That this narrative has emerged once again is particularly offensive in this instance given that Baltimore is a city largely run by black people (and by enlightened democrats since 1967). Of course, this inconvenient fact would never get in the way of the agenda of someone like GreenHorizons or YoureFired.
You sure like to ignore the sizable role that STATE policies play in how crime and punishment is handled in Baltimore. Of course, don't let this inconvenient fact get in the way of your blame blackey politics.
On April 30 2015 04:04 Sermokala wrote: The quote in my post mentioned people not waiting for due process or an investigation. A lack of information doesn't give people the right to treat their assumptions as fact.
Gh are you saying you don't understand what I'm saying or that you don't understand why that is how policy is?
That's fine, but I don't see why you are defending their actions or trying to justify the victim had a broken spine. Even the chief of police has said the officers acted improperly, did not follow procedure and failed to get him medical attention.
Hate and anger doesn't help anyone. Understanding the situation and using your empathy to help even the worst of us change just a little can make all the difference.
Well protesting peacefully was obviously not getting the results we are looking for i.e. less dead black people by police officers. It's easy for us to be like "whoa, violence and rioting is wrong," when we aren't the ones who have been on this end of it, until now.
It would have been like England telling the 13 colonies that they don't like "our tone," after the Boston massacre. And then decrying violence and civil disturbance at the outbreak of the revolution. Sure, it's easy for them to say, but at a certain point violence really is the only answer.
Does rioting now improve the perception of black people by police in this country? Probably not, but what they were doing before obviously wasn't working either.
I'm not familiar with Baltimore. Was there a history of trying and failing to reform the police?
Back to a point that was brought up pages and pages ago at this point, but rioting is the only thing that even put the police brutality in Baltimore into the national consciousness. There had been about two weeks of peaceful protesting, as members of the community were awaiting an explanation for how the kid whose spine was severed and whose voice box was crushed suffered those wounds in police custody. None of that mattered. Pretending like peaceful protests that appeal to a corrupt system for reform through a corrupt power structure actually work is putting your head in the sand. Rioting probably has almost no effect on the "perception of black people" in this country. It's just a polarizing lens which exposes people's biases through their reaction to said rioting.
And why does this event need to be in the national consciousness? That Baltimore has a shitty, corrupt, and brutal police department is a Baltimore problem that has to be solved by Baltimore.
Maybe as a way to put more eyes on the Baltimore leadership to exert social pressure and force change when there otherwise wouldn't be any? Do you think the riots are unknown in Baltimore? Alternatively do you think that everyone in Baltimore was paying attention to the peaceful protests? I feel like you didn't really think about your question very hard; it comes off as a flippant dodge.
Call it a dodge if you want, but it is not flippant. What's going on in Baltimore is a problem of Baltimore's own making. I certainly don't feel any responsibility for the city's dysfunction, and I absolutely resent being accused of racism whenever the masturacebators decide to take these local incidents national and blame whitey for the woes of the black community. That this narrative has emerged once again is particularly offensive in this instance given that Baltimore is a city largely run by black people (and by enlightened democrats since 1967). Of course, this inconvenient fact would never get in the way of the agenda of someone like GreenHorizons or YoureFired.
Who pays for the black politicians' campaigns in Baltimore? Who are the political backers behind a black mayor that calls rioters thugs? I actually don't know, I'm asking.
So would you have said that the problems going on in Selma or Birmingham are problems of their own making? Or was that different because black civil rights leaders at the time weren't "blaming whitey" for the woes of the black community? I haven't really been watching the news and don't really care to, but it seems odd to me that your reaction to the circus is to feel personally under attack because of some riots in Baltimore. I don't feel any responsibility for the city's dysfunction either but I don't resent the protesters. Then again I don't get called a racist very often.
You're seriously going to compare Selma, Birmingham, and the pre-Civil Rights Act South to Baltimore today? C'mon, man. And I don't recall MLK leading hordes of looters and arsonists, but maybe I missed something in my 10th grade history class.
Like I've said, I'm not saying that there isn't a problem in Baltimore. There clearly is. I just dare to suggest that it may not be racism, and then I get labeled a racist in return (go read a few pages back). That's the root of my hostility.
Personally I don't find the word thug racist. To me that really is an example of oversensitivity, which definitely exists into today's society. I did find it funny when the Baltimore city councilman laid into Erin Burnett, however, and I can definitely understand his frustration.
Obama used it just the other day to describe the events, which of course doesn't make it right but certainly shows that it's really a matter of perspective. To equate it to the N-word is a bit ridiculous. Now you have people like Slim Thug coming out like "Naw son, I knew it was racist all along, I'm just showin' some love to Tupac." It's kinda funny.
On an unrelated note, anyone who follows contemporary politics (I'm assuming most of you?), and hasn't seen Obama's remarks at the Correspondent's Dinner, needs to watch that shit immediately. Dude's material and delivery is ON POINT. Had to be a comedian in a past life or something.
On April 30 2015 04:04 Sermokala wrote: The quote in my post mentioned people not waiting for due process or an investigation. A lack of information doesn't give people the right to treat their assumptions as fact.
Gh are you saying you don't understand what I'm saying or that you don't understand why that is how policy is?
That's fine, but I don't see why you are defending their actions or trying to justify the victim had a broken spine. Even the chief of police has said the officers acted improperly, did not follow procedure and failed to get him medical attention.
Hate and anger doesn't help anyone. Understanding the situation and using your empathy to help even the worst of us change just a little can make all the difference.
Well protesting peacefully was obviously not getting the results we are looking for i.e. less dead black people by police officers. It's easy for us to be like "whoa, violence and rioting is wrong," when we aren't the ones who have been on this end of it, until now.
It would have been like England telling the 13 colonies that they don't like "our tone," after the Boston massacre. And then decrying violence and civil disturbance at the outbreak of the revolution. Sure, it's easy for them to say, but at a certain point violence really is the only answer.
Does rioting now improve the perception of black people by police in this country? Probably not, but what they were doing before obviously wasn't working either.
I'm not familiar with Baltimore. Was there a history of trying and failing to reform the police?
Back to a point that was brought up pages and pages ago at this point, but rioting is the only thing that even put the police brutality in Baltimore into the national consciousness. There had been about two weeks of peaceful protesting, as members of the community were awaiting an explanation for how the kid whose spine was severed and whose voice box was crushed suffered those wounds in police custody. None of that mattered. Pretending like peaceful protests that appeal to a corrupt system for reform through a corrupt power structure actually work is putting your head in the sand. Rioting probably has almost no effect on the "perception of black people" in this country. It's just a polarizing lens which exposes people's biases through their reaction to said rioting.
And why does this event need to be in the national consciousness? That Baltimore has a shitty, corrupt, and brutal police department is a Baltimore problem that has to be solved by Baltimore.
Maybe as a way to put more eyes on the Baltimore leadership to exert social pressure and force change when there otherwise wouldn't be any? Do you think the riots are unknown in Baltimore? Alternatively do you think that everyone in Baltimore was paying attention to the peaceful protests? I feel like you didn't really think about your question very hard; it comes off as a flippant dodge.
Call it a dodge if you want, but it is not flippant. What's going on in Baltimore is a problem of Baltimore's own making. I certainly don't feel any responsibility for the city's dysfunction, and I absolutely resent being accused of racism whenever the masturacebators decide to take these local incidents national and blame whitey for the woes of the black community. That this narrative has emerged once again is particularly offensive in this instance given that Baltimore is a city largely run by black people (and by enlightened democrats since 1967). Of course, this inconvenient fact would never get in the way of the agenda of someone like GreenHorizons or YoureFired.
You sure like to ignore the sizable role that STATE policies play in how crime and punishment is handled in Baltimore. Of course, don't let this inconvenient fact get in the way of your blame blackey politics.
Like what specifically? The laws are facially neutral. To the extent that they are unequal in application (or poorly applied -- ie police brutality), that's an enforcement problem, which is an issue at the local level: with police departments and DA offices.
On April 30 2015 11:32 always_winter wrote: What point are you two lovely gentlemen trying to make, exactly? If you're arguing that disenfranchisement is not personally your fault, then this is rather self-evident and not much of a point to be made. If you're arguing that by completely disregarding disenfranchisement as the underlying cause of resentment you should not be considered racially biased, then you're wrong.
Baltimore's problem is Baltimore's fault? The fuck does that even mean? If you're suggesting any number of failed policies enacted by municipal authorities is the sole cause of disenfranchisement in an American city, then you're wrong. This isn't a problem limited to Baltimore. This is a nationwide problem that has existed for decades.
You feel threatened because you're white and feel mislabeled, misrepresented, marginalized, diminished and stereotyped? Let that shit sink in for a while. I don't even need to explain the rest of it. If you're quick to minimize these events as some sort of race-baiting, black supremacist, white-bashing nonsense, then chances are you are, indeed, racially biased. Really think about your worldview for a moment. Do you actually believe all people are created equally? That the teenage Baltimore thug, had he been born into your family, with your opportunities, would be any different than you, yourself? When you're driving down the road and you see a black dude riding low with some rims, does some racist shit come into your head? It probably does.
I don't know either of you personally. I'm not going to call either of you racists, but when you just blindly disregard the plight of the disenfranchised, perceive everything as an attack, I mean it's nothing short of hypocritical and the irony there is almost laughable. Honestly, guys, open your fucking eyes. If this is the future of the conservative movement, then we'll be no better off fifty years from now than we are today.
Obviously not to be taken seriously, cuz 4chan. But, I'm guessing something along this line. + Show Spoiler +
My fellow white brother, my beautiful fellow human, I admit I may have been a bit harsh on the two of you since really I took these comments out of context, have not been following the post history of either of you, and therefore cannot unequivocally begin to understand your worldview. Let me just say that first. Daddy loves ya.
But let's be real here, my light-skinned brotha, which of those wonderful bullet points is responsible for the disenfranchisement which has existed since the dawn of this nation, which has led the poor and disenfranchised down a path not of their own choosing, which is juxtaposed so significantly and so obviously against our own privileged upbringings (yes, I am white, and I am very privileged)?
The answer is none of those, my good sir. Not a damned one.
On April 30 2015 11:32 always_winter wrote: What point are you two lovely gentlemen trying to make, exactly? If you're arguing that disenfranchisement is not personally your fault, then this is rather self-evident and not much of a point to be made. If you're arguing that by completely disregarding disenfranchisement as the underlying cause of resentment you should not be considered racially biased, then you're wrong.
Baltimore's problem is Baltimore's fault? The fuck does that even mean? If you're suggesting any number of failed policies enacted by municipal authorities is the sole cause of disenfranchisement in an American city, then you're wrong. This isn't a problem limited to Baltimore. This is a nationwide problem that has existed for decades.
You feel threatened because you're white and feel mislabeled, misrepresented, marginalized, diminished and stereotyped? Let that shit sink in for a while. I don't even need to explain the rest of it. If you're quick to minimize these events as some sort of race-baiting, black supremacist, white-bashing nonsense, then chances are you are, indeed, racially biased. Really think about your worldview for a moment. Do you actually believe all people are created equally? That the teenage Baltimore thug, had he been born into your family, with your opportunities, would be any different than you, yourself? When you're driving down the road and you see a black dude riding low with some rims, does some racist shit come into your head? It probably does.
I don't know either of you personally. I'm not going to call either of you racists, but when you just blindly disregard the plight of the disenfranchised, perceive everything as an attack, I mean it's nothing short of hypocritical and the irony there is almost laughable. Honestly, guys, open your fucking eyes. If this is the future of the conservative movement, then we'll be no better off fifty years from now than we are today.
Obviously not to be taken seriously, cuz 4chan. But, I'm guessing something along this line. + Show Spoiler +
My fellow white brother, my beautiful fellow human, I admit I may have been a bit harsh on the two of you since really I took these comments out of context, have not been following the post history of either of you, and therefore cannot unequivocally begin to understand your worldview. Let me just say that first. Daddy loves ya.
But let's be real here, my light-skinned brotha, which of those wonderful bullet points is responsible for the disenfranchisement which has existed since the dawn of this nation, which has led the poor and disenfranchised down a path not of their own choosing, which is juxtaposed so significantly and so obviously against our own privileged upbringings (yes, I am white, and I am very privileged)?
The answer is none of those, my good sir. Not a damned one.
I wish I was white, better med school chances for me. Would be even better if I was black too.
On April 30 2015 04:04 Sermokala wrote: The quote in my post mentioned people not waiting for due process or an investigation. A lack of information doesn't give people the right to treat their assumptions as fact.
Gh are you saying you don't understand what I'm saying or that you don't understand why that is how policy is?
That's fine, but I don't see why you are defending their actions or trying to justify the victim had a broken spine. Even the chief of police has said the officers acted improperly, did not follow procedure and failed to get him medical attention.
Hate and anger doesn't help anyone. Understanding the situation and using your empathy to help even the worst of us change just a little can make all the difference.
Well protesting peacefully was obviously not getting the results we are looking for i.e. less dead black people by police officers. It's easy for us to be like "whoa, violence and rioting is wrong," when we aren't the ones who have been on this end of it, until now.
It would have been like England telling the 13 colonies that they don't like "our tone," after the Boston massacre. And then decrying violence and civil disturbance at the outbreak of the revolution. Sure, it's easy for them to say, but at a certain point violence really is the only answer.
Does rioting now improve the perception of black people by police in this country? Probably not, but what they were doing before obviously wasn't working either.
I'm not familiar with Baltimore. Was there a history of trying and failing to reform the police?
Back to a point that was brought up pages and pages ago at this point, but rioting is the only thing that even put the police brutality in Baltimore into the national consciousness. There had been about two weeks of peaceful protesting, as members of the community were awaiting an explanation for how the kid whose spine was severed and whose voice box was crushed suffered those wounds in police custody. None of that mattered. Pretending like peaceful protests that appeal to a corrupt system for reform through a corrupt power structure actually work is putting your head in the sand. Rioting probably has almost no effect on the "perception of black people" in this country. It's just a polarizing lens which exposes people's biases through their reaction to said rioting.
And why does this event need to be in the national consciousness? That Baltimore has a shitty, corrupt, and brutal police department is a Baltimore problem that has to be solved by Baltimore.
Maybe as a way to put more eyes on the Baltimore leadership to exert social pressure and force change when there otherwise wouldn't be any? Do you think the riots are unknown in Baltimore? Alternatively do you think that everyone in Baltimore was paying attention to the peaceful protests? I feel like you didn't really think about your question very hard; it comes off as a flippant dodge.
Call it a dodge if you want, but it is not flippant. What's going on in Baltimore is a problem of Baltimore's own making. I certainly don't feel any responsibility for the city's dysfunction, and I absolutely resent being accused of racism whenever the masturacebators decide to take these local incidents national and blame whitey for the woes of the black community. That this narrative has emerged once again is particularly offensive in this instance given that Baltimore is a city largely run by black people (and by enlightened democrats since 1967). Of course, this inconvenient fact would never get in the way of the agenda of someone like GreenHorizons or YoureFired.
You sure like to ignore the sizable role that STATE policies play in how crime and punishment is handled in Baltimore. Of course, don't let this inconvenient fact get in the way of your blame blackey politics.
Are you aware Baltimore runs its own court system?
On April 30 2015 04:13 Plansix wrote: [quote] That's fine, but I don't see why you are defending their actions or trying to justify the victim had a broken spine. Even the chief of police has said the officers acted improperly, did not follow procedure and failed to get him medical attention.
Hate and anger doesn't help anyone. Understanding the situation and using your empathy to help even the worst of us change just a little can make all the difference.
Well protesting peacefully was obviously not getting the results we are looking for i.e. less dead black people by police officers. It's easy for us to be like "whoa, violence and rioting is wrong," when we aren't the ones who have been on this end of it, until now.
It would have been like England telling the 13 colonies that they don't like "our tone," after the Boston massacre. And then decrying violence and civil disturbance at the outbreak of the revolution. Sure, it's easy for them to say, but at a certain point violence really is the only answer.
Does rioting now improve the perception of black people by police in this country? Probably not, but what they were doing before obviously wasn't working either.
I'm not familiar with Baltimore. Was there a history of trying and failing to reform the police?
Back to a point that was brought up pages and pages ago at this point, but rioting is the only thing that even put the police brutality in Baltimore into the national consciousness. There had been about two weeks of peaceful protesting, as members of the community were awaiting an explanation for how the kid whose spine was severed and whose voice box was crushed suffered those wounds in police custody. None of that mattered. Pretending like peaceful protests that appeal to a corrupt system for reform through a corrupt power structure actually work is putting your head in the sand. Rioting probably has almost no effect on the "perception of black people" in this country. It's just a polarizing lens which exposes people's biases through their reaction to said rioting.
And why does this event need to be in the national consciousness? That Baltimore has a shitty, corrupt, and brutal police department is a Baltimore problem that has to be solved by Baltimore.
Maybe as a way to put more eyes on the Baltimore leadership to exert social pressure and force change when there otherwise wouldn't be any? Do you think the riots are unknown in Baltimore? Alternatively do you think that everyone in Baltimore was paying attention to the peaceful protests? I feel like you didn't really think about your question very hard; it comes off as a flippant dodge.
Call it a dodge if you want, but it is not flippant. What's going on in Baltimore is a problem of Baltimore's own making. I certainly don't feel any responsibility for the city's dysfunction, and I absolutely resent being accused of racism whenever the masturacebators decide to take these local incidents national and blame whitey for the woes of the black community. That this narrative has emerged once again is particularly offensive in this instance given that Baltimore is a city largely run by black people (and by enlightened democrats since 1967). Of course, this inconvenient fact would never get in the way of the agenda of someone like GreenHorizons or YoureFired.
You sure like to ignore the sizable role that STATE policies play in how crime and punishment is handled in Baltimore. Of course, don't let this inconvenient fact get in the way of your blame blackey politics.
Like what specifically? The laws are facially neutral. To the extent that they are unequal in application (or poorly applied -- ie police brutality), that's an enforcement problem, which is an issue at the local level: with police departments and DA offices.
Tell me, outside of the political process, who is tasked with making sure that allegations of state and local discriminatory practices on the part of courts and prosecutors are investigated and dealt with? Here's a hint: it isn't a local office.
On April 30 2015 04:13 Plansix wrote: [quote] That's fine, but I don't see why you are defending their actions or trying to justify the victim had a broken spine. Even the chief of police has said the officers acted improperly, did not follow procedure and failed to get him medical attention.
Hate and anger doesn't help anyone. Understanding the situation and using your empathy to help even the worst of us change just a little can make all the difference.
Well protesting peacefully was obviously not getting the results we are looking for i.e. less dead black people by police officers. It's easy for us to be like "whoa, violence and rioting is wrong," when we aren't the ones who have been on this end of it, until now.
It would have been like England telling the 13 colonies that they don't like "our tone," after the Boston massacre. And then decrying violence and civil disturbance at the outbreak of the revolution. Sure, it's easy for them to say, but at a certain point violence really is the only answer.
Does rioting now improve the perception of black people by police in this country? Probably not, but what they were doing before obviously wasn't working either.
I'm not familiar with Baltimore. Was there a history of trying and failing to reform the police?
Back to a point that was brought up pages and pages ago at this point, but rioting is the only thing that even put the police brutality in Baltimore into the national consciousness. There had been about two weeks of peaceful protesting, as members of the community were awaiting an explanation for how the kid whose spine was severed and whose voice box was crushed suffered those wounds in police custody. None of that mattered. Pretending like peaceful protests that appeal to a corrupt system for reform through a corrupt power structure actually work is putting your head in the sand. Rioting probably has almost no effect on the "perception of black people" in this country. It's just a polarizing lens which exposes people's biases through their reaction to said rioting.
And why does this event need to be in the national consciousness? That Baltimore has a shitty, corrupt, and brutal police department is a Baltimore problem that has to be solved by Baltimore.
Maybe as a way to put more eyes on the Baltimore leadership to exert social pressure and force change when there otherwise wouldn't be any? Do you think the riots are unknown in Baltimore? Alternatively do you think that everyone in Baltimore was paying attention to the peaceful protests? I feel like you didn't really think about your question very hard; it comes off as a flippant dodge.
Call it a dodge if you want, but it is not flippant. What's going on in Baltimore is a problem of Baltimore's own making. I certainly don't feel any responsibility for the city's dysfunction, and I absolutely resent being accused of racism whenever the masturacebators decide to take these local incidents national and blame whitey for the woes of the black community. That this narrative has emerged once again is particularly offensive in this instance given that Baltimore is a city largely run by black people (and by enlightened democrats since 1967). Of course, this inconvenient fact would never get in the way of the agenda of someone like GreenHorizons or YoureFired.
Who pays for the black politicians' campaigns in Baltimore? Who are the political backers behind a black mayor that calls rioters thugs? I actually don't know, I'm asking.
So would you have said that the problems going on in Selma or Birmingham are problems of their own making? Or was that different because black civil rights leaders at the time weren't "blaming whitey" for the woes of the black community? I haven't really been watching the news and don't really care to, but it seems odd to me that your reaction to the circus is to feel personally under attack because of some riots in Baltimore. I don't feel any responsibility for the city's dysfunction either but I don't resent the protesters. Then again I don't get called a racist very often.
You're seriously going to compare Selma, Birmingham, and the pre-Civil Rights Act South to Baltimore today? C'mon, man. And I don't recall MLK leading hordes of looters and arsonists, but maybe I missed something in my 10th grade history class.
Like I've said, I'm not saying that there isn't a problem in Baltimore. There clearly is. I just dare to suggest that it may not be racism, and then I get labeled a racist in return (go read a few pages back). That's the root of my hostility.
The constant references to MLK by white people trying to justify their stance is a bit tiresome at this point. MLK's brand of non-violence (which depended upon a violent response from the police for its efficacy) doesn't exist in a vacuum. It was the preferable alternative to the more militant groups forming and protesting at the time, and so owed its success in some large part to the louder and more unrepentant leaders who made MLK look like a good option to those in power. Those leaders were worried about the growing social unrest and undoubtedly viewed MLK as a man who could compromise, some would say to the detriment of his ultimate aims, in order to bring about a return to the status quo as quickly as possible. It's completely off the mark to ignore the cultural context of time, which involved Vietnam, the cold war, and tensions with China, and appeal to some sort of Disney-fied version of MLK in order to condemn the rioters.
I think the South in the 60s is comparable (not identical, obviously) in some ways to Baltimore, but particularly in the specific context, upon which you have not elaborated, of the rioters in Baltimore garnering the attention of the country at large. Why this bothers you is still a mystery to me. Why this doesn't seem like a natural outgrowth of a sentiment that has pinged back and forth across dozens of cities in this country is also a mystery. Before the riots had even stopped there was a news story about an unarmed man in Detroit being shot by an immigration officer. I don't think many people, if any, would say this is just about Baltimore.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YrDx4eq.jpg)
