US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4218

On July 09 2016 05:13 NukeD wrote:

Yet you clearly side with some perspectives over the others. How can you live with yourself if you know you can never grasp the truth in its pureness?

On July 09 2016 05:16 NukeD wrote:
I wonder how BLM envision a future with which they would be happy with. What do they want exactly? In definite terms?

On July 09 2016 05:18 heliusx wrote:

For law enforcement to stop shooting black people that don't deserve to be killed?

On July 09 2016 05:15 Plansix wrote:

Yes, that is called making an informed decision. I understand the others perspectives, I just don’t agree with their conclusions.

On July 09 2016 05:04 opisska wrote:
The news of the shooting largely missed me, because I was busy looking for a place to live. Then I went to wikipedia to check what happened and was first quite confused, what was the motive of the shooting - I would kinda have expected that if the shooting was racially motivated, that information would be prominently featured, together with the information that the shooter himself was black. But that's apparently not how wikipedia rolls these days. When I asked on the talk page, I got informed that determining that someone is black from looking at his picture is "original research".

Is that just a wikipedia thing where PC fans have a field day with their agenda, or is this a general thing in media being reluctant to acknowledge a racist act when it happens the other way around?

On July 09 2016 05:17 NukeD wrote:

Which brings me to my first question? Where do you get these "perspectives" if you wish? Since obviously you are very keen to dismiss everyone else's.

In a year-long study, The Washington Post found that the kind of incidents that have ignited protests in many U.S. communities — most often, white police officers killing unarmed black men — represent less than 4 percent of fatal police shootings. Meanwhile, The Post found that the great majority of people who died at the hands of the police fit at least one of three categories: they were wielding weapons, they were suicidal or mentally troubled, or they ran when officers told them to halt.

On July 09 2016 05:16 NukeD wrote:
I wonder how BLM envision a future with which they would be happy with. What do they want exactly? In definite terms?

On July 09 2016 05:22 zulu_nation8 wrote:
From WaPo, 2015:

In a year-long study, The Washington Post found that the kind of incidents that have ignited protests in many U.S. communities — most often, white police officers killing unarmed black men — represent less than 4 percent of fatal police shootings. Meanwhile, The Post found that the great majority of people who died at the hands of the police fit at least one of three categories: they were wielding weapons, they were suicidal or mentally troubled, or they ran when officers told them to halt.

In a year-long study, The Washington Post found that the kind of incidents that have ignited protests in many U.S. communities — most often, white police officers killing unarmed black men — represent less than 4 percent of fatal police shootings. Meanwhile, The Post found that the great majority of people who died at the hands of the police fit at least one of three categories: they were wielding weapons, they were suicidal or mentally troubled, or they ran when officers told them to halt.

On July 09 2016 05:28 Plansix wrote:

That is fine, but also zero comfort for the 4% of shootings that are unarmed black men. Really, I want the police being forced to shoot an unarmed person to be this crazy things that I never hear of and the situation was so extraordinary that made it necessary.