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 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.
Got a source?
On July 09 2016 05:24 Naracs_Duc wrote:
On July 09 2016 05:08 GoTuNk! wrote:
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?
You are only allowed to shame white people for being racist, I tought that was well known.
Omg, this video does put the BLM thing on perspective:
It really depends on your definition of racism.
Your bastardization of the definition of racism is wrong.
You don't get to point at blue and call it red. Blue is blue. I really hate the SJW's attempts to hijack the definition of racism so you can't be racist against whites in america. It's absurdly stupid, shortsighted, and harmful.
I encourage anyone looking to avoid the dispute on racism with folks like GG to just use "raycism" in it's stead. The definition of raycism is essentially what they don't want racism to mean, (prejudice plus power in short hand).
It's my word, no one else gets to define it, and the conversation can move forward without stagnating on the term.
You can call 'blue' 'red', or even 'r3d' all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. Blue is still blue.
The shooter last night who specifically set out to kill white people, especially white cops, was a racist.
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.
Got a source?
On July 09 2016 05:24 Naracs_Duc wrote:
On July 09 2016 05:08 GoTuNk! wrote:
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?
You are only allowed to shame white people for being racist, I tought that was well known.
Omg, this video does put the BLM thing on perspective:
Your bastardization of the definition of racism is wrong.
You don't get to point at blue and call it red. Blue is blue. I really hate the SJW's attempts to hijack the definition of racism so you can't be racist against whites in america. It's absurdly stupid, shortsighted, and harmful.
I encourage anyone looking to avoid the dispute on racism with folks like GG to just use "raycism" in it's stead. The definition of raycism is essentially what they don't want racism to mean, (prejudice plus power in short hand).
It's my word, no one else gets to define it, and the conversation can move forward without stagnating on the term.
You can call 'blue' 'red', or even 'r3d' all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. Blue is still blue.
The shooter last night who specifically set out to kill white people, especially white cops, was a racist.
If you say so, but he wasn't raycist like the police who refused to take down the picture or issue a statement clearing an innocent man who was called a cop-killer in the raycist media as a result.
The guy was clearly bigoted and prejudiced as all get out though.
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.
Got a source?
On July 09 2016 05:24 Naracs_Duc wrote:
On July 09 2016 05:08 GoTuNk! wrote:
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?
You are only allowed to shame white people for being racist, I tought that was well known.
Omg, this video does put the BLM thing on perspective:
Your bastardization of the definition of racism is wrong.
You don't get to point at blue and call it red. Blue is blue. I really hate the SJW's attempts to hijack the definition of racism so you can't be racist against whites in america. It's absurdly stupid, shortsighted, and harmful.
I encourage anyone looking to avoid the dispute on racism with folks like GG to just use "raycism" in it's stead. The definition of raycism is essentially what they don't want racism to mean, (prejudice plus power in short hand).
It's my word, no one else gets to define it, and the conversation can move forward without stagnating on the term.
You can call 'blue' 'red', or even 'r3d' all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. Blue is still blue.
The shooter last night who specifically set out to kill white people, especially white cops, was a racist.
If you say so, but he wasn't raycist like the police who refused to take down the picture or issue a statement clearing an innocent man who was called a cop-killer in the raycist media as a result.
The guy was clearly bigoted and prejudiced as all get out though.
just curious, can blacks be racist against whites in your view?
For me, the term racism has lost all meaning ever since it was co-opted to mean "in opposition to any mainstream liberal policy." It could easily be added as a corollary to Godwin's Law.
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.
Got a source?
On July 09 2016 05:24 Naracs_Duc wrote:
On July 09 2016 05:08 GoTuNk! wrote:
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?
You are only allowed to shame white people for being racist, I tought that was well known.
Omg, this video does put the BLM thing on perspective:
Your bastardization of the definition of racism is wrong.
You don't get to point at blue and call it red. Blue is blue. I really hate the SJW's attempts to hijack the definition of racism so you can't be racist against whites in america. It's absurdly stupid, shortsighted, and harmful.
I encourage anyone looking to avoid the dispute on racism with folks like GG to just use "raycism" in it's stead. The definition of raycism is essentially what they don't want racism to mean, (prejudice plus power in short hand).
It's my word, no one else gets to define it, and the conversation can move forward without stagnating on the term.
You can call 'blue' 'red', or even 'r3d' all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. Blue is still blue.
The shooter last night who specifically set out to kill white people, especially white cops, was a racist.
If you say so, but he wasn't raycist like the police who refused to take down the picture or issue a statement clearing an innocent man who was called a cop-killer in the raycist media as a result.
The guy was clearly bigoted and prejudiced as all get out though.
just curious, can blacks be racist against whites in your view?
Depends on the definition of the term. For simplicity sake, in this forum I've just conceded the definition of "racism" to those who refuse the academic interpretation. So yes, but I use the terms bigotry and prejudice to describe that.
If you're asking if black people can be raycist toward white people, the answer is no, at least not currently.
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.
Got a source?
On July 09 2016 05:24 Naracs_Duc wrote:
On July 09 2016 05:08 GoTuNk! wrote:
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?
You are only allowed to shame white people for being racist, I tought that was well known.
Omg, this video does put the BLM thing on perspective:
Your bastardization of the definition of racism is wrong.
You don't get to point at blue and call it red. Blue is blue. I really hate the SJW's attempts to hijack the definition of racism so you can't be racist against whites in america. It's absurdly stupid, shortsighted, and harmful.
I encourage anyone looking to avoid the dispute on racism with folks like GG to just use "raycism" in it's stead. The definition of raycism is essentially what they don't want racism to mean, (prejudice plus power in short hand).
It's my word, no one else gets to define it, and the conversation can move forward without stagnating on the term.
You can call 'blue' 'red', or even 'r3d' all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. Blue is still blue.
The shooter last night who specifically set out to kill white people, especially white cops, was a racist.
If you say so, but he wasn't raycist like the police who refused to take down the picture or issue a statement clearing an innocent man who was called a cop-killer in the raycist media as a result.
The guy was clearly bigoted and prejudiced as all get out though.
just curious, can blacks be racist against whites in your view?
Depends on the definition of the term. For simplicity sake, in this forum I've just conceded the definition of "racism" to those who refuse the academic interpretation. So yes, but I use the terms bigotry and prejudice to describe that.
If you're asking if black people can be raycist toward white people, the answer is no, at least not currently.
Your definition is not 'the' academic interpretation. At best I'll concede it's 'an' academic interpretation. And it is an incorrect one at that.
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.
Got a source?
On July 09 2016 05:24 Naracs_Duc wrote:
On July 09 2016 05:08 GoTuNk! wrote:
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?
You are only allowed to shame white people for being racist, I tought that was well known.
Omg, this video does put the BLM thing on perspective:
Your bastardization of the definition of racism is wrong.
You don't get to point at blue and call it red. Blue is blue. I really hate the SJW's attempts to hijack the definition of racism so you can't be racist against whites in america. It's absurdly stupid, shortsighted, and harmful.
I encourage anyone looking to avoid the dispute on racism with folks like GG to just use "raycism" in it's stead. The definition of raycism is essentially what they don't want racism to mean, (prejudice plus power in short hand).
It's my word, no one else gets to define it, and the conversation can move forward without stagnating on the term.
You can call 'blue' 'red', or even 'r3d' all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. Blue is still blue.
The shooter last night who specifically set out to kill white people, especially white cops, was a racist.
If you say so, but he wasn't raycist like the police who refused to take down the picture or issue a statement clearing an innocent man who was called a cop-killer in the raycist media as a result.
The guy was clearly bigoted and prejudiced as all get out though.
just curious, can blacks be racist against whites in your view?
Depends on the definition of the term. For simplicity sake, in this forum I've just conceded the definition of "racism" to those who refuse the academic interpretation. So yes, but I use the terms bigotry and prejudice to describe that.
If you're asking if black people can be raycist toward white people, the answer is no, at least not currently.
Your definition is not 'the' academic interpretation. At best I'll concede it's 'an' academic interpretation. And it is an incorrect one at that.
Ok, I'll bite.
Who is it that studies racism in the academic world that you're referring to holding a differing opinion (just looking for some examples)?
I'm not advocating violence but it sounds like she's referring to murderous cops, which isn't really worse than what I've seen posted by all sorts of people (including those who typically defend cops) saying that cops who execute civilians should be X. She also looks like a younger sister (could be wrong) but even if she meant the worst interpretation I'd probably file it under "dumb stuff young people say in anger".
She could have been more clear, but I don't think that post is something to indict her over. If she was involved though, she should should be held responsible.
People should seriously be prosecuted for shit like this.
Well... are you wanna start a discussion about different interpretations of free speech? In some countries this is legal, in some it isn't. And whereever you draw the line, you will find good examples that may be treated wrong. (with "wrong" being completely subjective)
But well... in the end it just shows, that in every large enough population, be it cops, be it blacks, or be it ppl drinking strawberry shakes, you will find some dumbnuts.
PS: Please dont be racist, raycist, bigoted or whatever is the flavour of the day towards strawberry shake drinkers. Also please don't ban strawberry shakes. We may talk about stricter strawberry shake control laws though.
On July 09 2016 07:34 LegalLord wrote: For me, the term racism has lost all meaning ever since it was co-opted to mean "in opposition to any mainstream liberal policy." It could easily be added as a corollary to Godwin's Law.
That isn't what it means, not for liberals. And the meta-Godwin's law reflex you're displaying here happens ten times more often than Godwin's law. It's like this new age atheism that complains about very religious people ten times more often than I actually see very religious people
People should seriously be prosecuted for shit like this.
A law against posting really stupid things online would not be good for you. You should be happy that the same freedoms that protect her apply to your own equally valid utterances.
Speech such as that would almost certainly be protected under current 1st Amendment jurisprudence, and rightfully so, I might add. Doesn't make it any less despicable nor belligerent.
People should seriously be prosecuted for shit like this.
Damn, the PC crowd at it again.
Im like the most anti PC guy here. You just cant write stuff like that in the light of this big of a tragedy.
we're talking about this week's US thing, right? on the scale of tragedies that barely registers (except for West-centrism). though I might be unclear on exactly which issue you referring to, so feel free to clarify. unless you're using the tragedy/statistic distinction of course, in which case, fine.
People should seriously be prosecuted for shit like this.
Damn, the PC crowd at it again.
Im like the most anti PC guy here. You just cant write stuff like that in the light of this big of a tragedy.
we're talking about this week's US thing, right? on the scale of tragedies that barely registers (except for West-centrism). though I might be unclear on exactly which issue you referring to, so feel free to clarify.
EPT![[image loading]](http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2704539.1468004307!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/sister9n-1-web.jpg)
We may talk about stricter strawberry shake control laws though.
