|
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. |
On November 29 2016 04:44 Doodsmack wrote:
That's interesting that he's turning away intelligence briefings. I wonder if it's because he simply can't stand to sit through them. Roger Ailes reportedly stopped advising trump for the debates after realising trump can't focus and so it was a waste of time.
Based upon things he has said and his behavior at the few briefings we have heard about I think it is more likely that he does not trust them. He is probably waiting until he's in charge and he can put his own people in charge of intelligence who he will actually trust.
|
On November 29 2016 05:13 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 04:44 Doodsmack wrote:
That's interesting that he's turning away intelligence briefings. I wonder if it's because he simply can't stand to sit through them. Roger Ailes reportedly stopped advising trump for the debates after realising trump can't focus and so it was a waste of time. Based upon things he has said and his behavior at the few briefings we have heard about I think it is more likely that he does not trust them. He is probably waiting until he's in charge and he can put his own people in charge of intelligence who he will actually trust.
Well that's certainly an insult to the intelligence community and you'd have to wonder why he wouldn't want to be prepared.
|
On November 29 2016 05:12 oBlade wrote:
As Morning Joe Scarborough explained, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich don't work for him, unlike Kellyanne.
Well they're certainly seeking to work for him.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
|
With Michigan certifying a Trump victory and Stein missing the deadline to file for a recount in Pennsylvania, it looks like the recount sideshow is over.
|
On November 29 2016 06:18 xDaunt wrote:
With Michigan certifying a Trump victory and Stein missing the deadline to file for a recount in Pennsylvania, it looks like recount sideshow is over.
It seems like it was just a publicity stunt intended to give the green party a bunch of money.
|
On November 29 2016 03:54 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 03:47 Acrofales wrote:On November 29 2016 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2016 00:47 ChristianS wrote:On November 29 2016 00:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2016 00:18 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 22:35 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 17:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 15:32 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
I don't think that's a true reflection of the BLM movement, but the two most common responses to "#blacklivesmatter" are "#alllivesmatter" and "#bluelivesmatter". The first reflects the criticism that BLM doesn't include non-black lives, the second that BLM incites violence against cops. Both should be easily dismissed, and yet both have been very influential. No, that's because people are stubborn, and proudly ignorant. If you didn't know what they wanted it's because you didn't even make the most basic attempt to figure it out . Nothing to do with their messaging. I'm tired of "well-meaning liberals" perpetuating this excuse for ignorance. If people are ignorant it's not BLM's fault, not only are their policy ideas easily accessible to anyone who mounts even a 1st grade level attempt of information gathering, again, the core concepts aren't new. They are the same things that have been expected for generations, only for stubborn white people to assure us if we only explained it better then they would recognize the atrocity they are ignoring. The same could be said about the liberals who aren't disgusted by our governments behavior regarding Standing Rock. So anytime anyone suggests it's reasonable to blame BLM's messaging, I'm going to promptly inform the poster of how rankly ignorant that position is. Hey, you know what i've never had to do? Google the NRA's positions. And yet I know off the top of my head what they want. Sure, if I was writing a research paper on BLM or some shit, I'd Google around for what they want. Then I'd try to figure out who the hell wrote those websites, and whether they're representative of the movement. And I'm sure all of that would be a lot of fun. But again, if I hired a marketing team to raise awareness and positive associations with my company, and after a year most people aren't quite sure what they do, but on average they vaguely dislike us, that's a failure in marketing. And if the marketing team defended itself by saying it's not their fault, people are ignorant and if they wanted to know whst my company does they could have just looked up our website, that's missing the fucking point. Messaging is marketing, and marketing is about meeting the population where they're at, not shitting on them for not being the type of people you'd prefer to market to. But we're talking in circles and you can't seem to argue with someone without asserting your superiority and their rank ignorance, so hey, let's call the whole thing off, eh? You're arguing googling a question is too much work to find out a position someone claims they have any desire to know. (Just let that sink in for a moment) If they don't care to know (but think their opinion worth consideration), that is a character flaw in them. That's fine for them, but let's not pretend it's bad messaging (BLM isn't some random company). That you would compare BLM to the NRA is confounding, unless placed in the context of you not knowing why that comparison is absurd to the point of being insulting. But let's entertain your notion for a moment, you said you "know off the top of my head what they want". What's that? Well we went a post without you insulting my intelligence, but now apparently I've insulted you by drawing an analogy between one political advocacy group and another, so seriously, let's drop it, okay? Clearly you have no desire to acknowledge that BLM messaging is not necessarily accomplishing its goals, and I've no desire to be repeatedly accused of rank ignorance. I think I've made my point clearly enough but you obviously don't think so, why not leave it at that? No, I'll be alright, you aren't dodging knowing what the NRA wants off the top of your head are you? Don't know how to prove I didn't google anything, so I guess you'll just have to take my word for it, although maybe off the top of my head is ignorant enough it'll be apparent I didn't cheat: The NRA wants the right to bear arms not to be infringed, notably with little or no concern for what that has to do with a well-regulated militia. That makes them mostly a group of opposition - opposed to gun waiting periods, opposed to regulating gun shows, opposed to stringent background checks, opposed to limiting high capacity clips. It seems like the natural extreme of their position would be allowing private citizens to purchase RPGs and hellfire missiles and nukes, and I don't know where they draw the line with rhetoric. I assume they say something like "military-grade gear" shouldn't be legal, with the notable exception of ARs. Of course, where they draw the line with what weapons should be illegal doesn't seem to matter much, because they seem to spend most of their time opposing gun control measures rather than supporting measures that expand gun rights. How'd I do? + Show Spoiler [@TanGeng] +
Couldn't figure out how to PM you from my phone, but was that warning directed at me? If you want me to stop engaging with GH or something I'll happily oblige, just want to clarify what you want.
Ok so you know that off the top of your head, you assert, because of their marketing/messaging. You didn't understand why the NRA was a bad comparison, so let me ask some questions that I think may illuminate that. When was the NRA created? When was BLM created? Since people have liked to use the random business example, would you say that comparing the brand recognition of Coca Cola and Jones Soda is a fair comparison on it's face? Or that Jones Soda isn't as well known as Coca Cola because they are doing a poor marketing job? You got me to do the experiment. I googled "Black Lives Matter". The first hit was Wikipedia (good). However, the biggest and most prominent hit (with a picture and taking up half the screen) was this article: Black Lives Matter Salutes Fidel Castro, is 'Grateful' He Harbored an FBI Most Wanted TerroristAre you sure you want people googling to discover what BLM is? PS. I screenshotted it to show no shenannies. And in comparison, I also googled National Rifle Association. This gives me the NRA homepage first hit. Then a big block with "questions people are asking about the NRA" which I might be interested in. Third, the NRA about page. Fourth, wikipedia entry for the NRA. Rest would require me to scroll. Eh, Google usually hits you with the news story of the day any time you search for something of that nature, and takes into account your search habits. This is a poor counterexample. My second BLM hit on Google is their website's "Who We Are" page. The first is Wikipedia. I really can't see how it isn't clear what a group called "Black Lives Matter" who raises a lot of buzz whenever black people are "harassed" by police wants to do. Everything they do basically falls on the spectrum of "minority group is disadvantaged". I mean, I do see how it's unclear exactly how far they would be willing to go, but the general direction seems pretty self-evident by the name?
There is a big difference between a general problem and the wide range of solutions that could be suggested... everything from
-perhaps we should teach blacks how to avoid these confrontations/survive them better
to
-we should purify the American continents of nonblack lives.
and everything in between
(and I can guarantee you that each of those is supported by at least one person..although the last one probably by someone with severe mental illness)
|
Sanya12364 Posts
RIP 2016 recount effort. It seems like the Green party got a huge publicity stunt and raked in the Democratic party moneies.
|
On November 29 2016 06:22 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 06:18 xDaunt wrote:
With Michigan certifying a Trump victory and Stein missing the deadline to file for a recount in Pennsylvania, it looks like recount sideshow is over. It seems like it was just a publicity stunt intended to give the green party a bunch of money.
What else did people think
he had so many more electoral college votes no?
Trump seems pretty dumb for saying millions did voter fraud and even giving these people publicity when he won fair and square he just can't help himself lol, it's like he's still running the campaign and his narcissistic personality just can't let him enjoy what he's done and just ignore the media stacked against him and focus on you know...just doing a good job.
|
On the BLM movement, a random thought I ponder:
If instead of spending time protesting, they spent time that time work at their jobs, and used that money to buy ads; or even better, used that money to hire lobbyists; would they have gotten better results?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 29 2016 06:40 LemOn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 06:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 29 2016 06:18 xDaunt wrote:
With Michigan certifying a Trump victory and Stein missing the deadline to file for a recount in Pennsylvania, it looks like recount sideshow is over. It seems like it was just a publicity stunt intended to give the green party a bunch of money. What else did people think he had so many more electoral college votes no? Trump seems pretty dumb for saying millions did voter fraud and even giving these people publicity when he won fair and square he just can't help himself lol, it's like he's still running the campaign and his narcissistic personality just can't let him enjoy what he's done and just ignore the media stacked against him and focus on you know...just doing a good job.
Ha! Probably having fun on social media is just that much more fun than being 100% "serious."
However, I am counting on his narcissism being a positive influence on actual policy.
On November 29 2016 06:44 zlefin wrote:
On the BLM movement, a random thought I ponder:
If instead of spending time protesting, they spent time that time work at their jobs, and used that money to buy ads; or even better, used that money to hire lobbyists; would they have gotten better results?
I would bet against it.
Not enough jobs or money.
|
On November 29 2016 06:44 zlefin wrote:
On the BLM movement, a random thought I ponder:
If instead of spending time protesting, they spent time that time work at their jobs, and used that money to buy ads; or even better, used that money to hire lobbyists; would they have gotten better results?
Given that many of the folks who fall beneath the umbrella of BLM's mission have difficulty obtaining gainful, living wage employment, that seems like a nonstarter. For example, millions of small time felony drug offenders, most of which are minorities, are not going to be able to gather capital in the manner you've described. Accordingly, BLM and other groups that represent folks decrying systemic injustice utilize protests and other agitation-based public displays in an effort to make up that difference.
|
On November 29 2016 04:01 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 03:54 Blisse wrote:On November 29 2016 03:47 Acrofales wrote:On November 29 2016 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2016 00:47 ChristianS wrote:On November 29 2016 00:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2016 00:18 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 22:35 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 17:55 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] No, that's because people are stubborn, and proudly ignorant. If you didn't know what they wanted it's because you didn't even make the most basic attempt to figure it out . Nothing to do with their messaging. I'm tired of "well-meaning liberals" perpetuating this excuse for ignorance. If people are ignorant it's not BLM's fault, not only are their policy ideas easily accessible to anyone who mounts even a 1st grade level attempt of information gathering, again, the core concepts aren't new. They are the same things that have been expected for generations, only for stubborn white people to assure us if we only explained it better then they would recognize the atrocity they are ignoring. The same could be said about the liberals who aren't disgusted by our governments behavior regarding Standing Rock. So anytime anyone suggests it's reasonable to blame BLM's messaging, I'm going to promptly inform the poster of how rankly ignorant that position is. Hey, you know what i've never had to do? Google the NRA's positions. And yet I know off the top of my head what they want. Sure, if I was writing a research paper on BLM or some shit, I'd Google around for what they want. Then I'd try to figure out who the hell wrote those websites, and whether they're representative of the movement. And I'm sure all of that would be a lot of fun. But again, if I hired a marketing team to raise awareness and positive associations with my company, and after a year most people aren't quite sure what they do, but on average they vaguely dislike us, that's a failure in marketing. And if the marketing team defended itself by saying it's not their fault, people are ignorant and if they wanted to know whst my company does they could have just looked up our website, that's missing the fucking point. Messaging is marketing, and marketing is about meeting the population where they're at, not shitting on them for not being the type of people you'd prefer to market to. But we're talking in circles and you can't seem to argue with someone without asserting your superiority and their rank ignorance, so hey, let's call the whole thing off, eh? You're arguing googling a question is too much work to find out a position someone claims they have any desire to know. (Just let that sink in for a moment) If they don't care to know (but think their opinion worth consideration), that is a character flaw in them. That's fine for them, but let's not pretend it's bad messaging (BLM isn't some random company). That you would compare BLM to the NRA is confounding, unless placed in the context of you not knowing why that comparison is absurd to the point of being insulting. But let's entertain your notion for a moment, you said you "know off the top of my head what they want". What's that? Well we went a post without you insulting my intelligence, but now apparently I've insulted you by drawing an analogy between one political advocacy group and another, so seriously, let's drop it, okay? Clearly you have no desire to acknowledge that BLM messaging is not necessarily accomplishing its goals, and I've no desire to be repeatedly accused of rank ignorance. I think I've made my point clearly enough but you obviously don't think so, why not leave it at that? No, I'll be alright, you aren't dodging knowing what the NRA wants off the top of your head are you? Don't know how to prove I didn't google anything, so I guess you'll just have to take my word for it, although maybe off the top of my head is ignorant enough it'll be apparent I didn't cheat: The NRA wants the right to bear arms not to be infringed, notably with little or no concern for what that has to do with a well-regulated militia. That makes them mostly a group of opposition - opposed to gun waiting periods, opposed to regulating gun shows, opposed to stringent background checks, opposed to limiting high capacity clips. It seems like the natural extreme of their position would be allowing private citizens to purchase RPGs and hellfire missiles and nukes, and I don't know where they draw the line with rhetoric. I assume they say something like "military-grade gear" shouldn't be legal, with the notable exception of ARs. Of course, where they draw the line with what weapons should be illegal doesn't seem to matter much, because they seem to spend most of their time opposing gun control measures rather than supporting measures that expand gun rights. How'd I do? + Show Spoiler [@TanGeng] +
Couldn't figure out how to PM you from my phone, but was that warning directed at me? If you want me to stop engaging with GH or something I'll happily oblige, just want to clarify what you want.
Ok so you know that off the top of your head, you assert, because of their marketing/messaging. You didn't understand why the NRA was a bad comparison, so let me ask some questions that I think may illuminate that. When was the NRA created? When was BLM created? Since people have liked to use the random business example, would you say that comparing the brand recognition of Coca Cola and Jones Soda is a fair comparison on it's face? Or that Jones Soda isn't as well known as Coca Cola because they are doing a poor marketing job? You got me to do the experiment. I googled "Black Lives Matter". The first hit was Wikipedia (good). However, the biggest and most prominent hit (with a picture and taking up half the screen) was this article: Black Lives Matter Salutes Fidel Castro, is 'Grateful' He Harbored an FBI Most Wanted TerroristAre you sure you want people googling to discover what BLM is? PS. I screenshotted it to show no shenannies. And in comparison, I also googled National Rifle Association. This gives me the NRA homepage first hit. Then a big block with "questions people are asking about the NRA" which I might be interested in. Third, the NRA about page. Fourth, wikipedia entry for the NRA. Rest would require me to scroll. Eh, Google usually hits you with the news story of the day any time you search for something of that nature, and takes into account your search habits. This is a poor counterexample. My second BLM hit on Google is their website's "Who We Are" page. The first is Wikipedia. I really can't see how it isn't clear what a group called "Black Lives Matter" who raises a lot of buzz whenever black people are harassed by police wants to do. Everything they do basically falls on the spectrum of "minority group is disadvantaged". I mean, I do see how it's unclear exactly how far they would be willing to go, but the general direction seems pretty self-evident by the name? I know what BLM is and what they want. That wasn't the point. The point was in the argument that GH seems to think BLM's media strategy and outreach is completely fine. It really isn't. His response was "if you can't even be bothered to Google, you're not worth reaching out to". So I googled. My search history in Google is going to be taken intou account. As is everything else google knows about me. And trust me that I don't usually look for fringe and right wing news. Here is what Google Now thinks I'm interested in: Rogue One story on Gizmodo Football (Ajax, Premier League) Other sports (F1 conclusion) Zimbabwe currency fears (BBC News) Dutch politics Not exactly your typical Breitbart customer I don't think. So now imagine what someone with a less leftist and more centric history will get when googling Black Lives Matter. BLM seems to have invested negative money in getting themselves well listed on Google. At least take out same ads to buy the sponsored spot.
Luckily for everyone here they've seen links and aren't 6 so not knowing to add "policy" to find out Black lives matters' policy suggestions isn't really an excuse for anyone here.
Also, what I guess everyone missed since I used the business analogy is that BLM isn't a business or a product. BLM is an outgrowth of people screaming at the top of their lungs that they don't have the protection of their constitutional rights.
That someone hasn't been interested in finding out more, isn't the same as not caring to look up off brand soda manufacturers. It's more like hearing a woman scream for help/"Rape" and thinking, "well I can't be bothered to figure out whether she's actually in danger or not, she needs better media relations".
That people so casually make the connection between not caring to learn about BLM to not caring to learn about pointless things reveals more than they intend.
EDIT: I'm not saying that people have to know what BLM wants, but if you come here saying you don't know, it's because
1. You haven't paid attention to conversations here discussing it (or tried to look them up)
2. You haven't mounted a grade school level effort to figure it out
3. Your privilege makes it not an issue for you or the people you care about (other than complaining about traffic and such)
4. You're not sincere (most likely with yourself) about whether you actually care.
Not because you're just a typical person who could go either way if only their messaging was better. People need to stop telling themselves and each other this lie.
|
Would you say that BLM is a homogeneous group that only has one ideology, or that different parts of the movement use BLM as a mean to an end?
|
On November 29 2016 06:18 xDaunt wrote:
With Michigan certifying a Trump victory and Stein missing the deadline to file for a recount in Pennsylvania, it looks like the recount sideshow is over.
I think it was a ridiculous idea anyway, even though everything Trump said about millions of illegal votes (lol) made it sound like we *should* have a recount anyway... in case those people actually voted for him.
Stein just wanted a little more limelight I think.
|
What an outright bullshit scam, "computer scientists" who found something suspicious lol. She made more money than was raised by her entire campaign preying on the anger of the losing side, she would have done this even if HRC won guaranteed.
|
On November 29 2016 08:24 Uldridge wrote:
Would you say that BLM is a homogeneous group that only has one ideology, or that different parts of the movement use BLM as a mean to an end?
I would describe BLM as millions of people collectively screaming at the top of their lungs for equal rights and protection from/by the law. We all want to reduce/remove systemic racism from our institutions and ideally do whatever we can to address the role implicit racial bias plays in society.
When you go beyond those core ideals it get's more hazy like any organization.
On November 29 2016 08:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 06:18 xDaunt wrote:
With Michigan certifying a Trump victory and Stein missing the deadline to file for a recount in Pennsylvania, it looks like the recount sideshow is over. I think it was a ridiculous idea anyway, even though everything Trump said about millions of illegal votes (lol) made it sound like we *should* have a recount anyway... in case those people actually voted for him. Stein just wanted a little more limelight I think.
I'd love to see the people who donated sign a petition to not waste time and money on a recount and instead give the money to the water protectors, or use it to build homes for Haitians that the Clinton's and the Red Cross screwed over. Doubt that will happen though.
|
On November 29 2016 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 08:24 Uldridge wrote:
Would you say that BLM is a homogeneous group that only has one ideology, or that different parts of the movement use BLM as a mean to an end? I would describe BLM as millions of people collectively screaming at the top of their lungs for equal rights and protection from/by the law. We all want to reduce/remove systemic racism from our institutions and ideally do whatever we can to address the role implicit racial bias plays in society. When you go beyond those core ideals it get's more hazy like any organization.
The bias you speak of isn't going to randomly disappear by yelling. Every time a cop has an interaction with a potential suspect there is a non negligible chance that it can become dangerous and lethal, and it just so happens that blacks are more involved in those interactions than any other race relative to the rest of the population. The reason for this is probably multifactorial and systemic in nature, but that is the root of the problem, and ofcourse cops are going to be extra defensive against blacks until that fact changes.
Now there are video examples of shootings where cops kill defenseless black victims, and these I believe are inexcusable, but quite possibly exaggerated by the media and are an example of shit cops with either racial bias or poor judgement. To say that there is a systemic racial bias against blacks by the cops is just another way of saying there is systemic racial bias period, and I don't see how yelling at cops will fix that. Cops are just players in the game who are trying to stay alive and do their job. The worse the environment they patrol, the worse they usually are just out of sheer adaptation.
|
On November 29 2016 08:47 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2016 08:24 Uldridge wrote:
Would you say that BLM is a homogeneous group that only has one ideology, or that different parts of the movement use BLM as a mean to an end? I would describe BLM as millions of people collectively screaming at the top of their lungs for equal rights and protection from/by the law. We all want to reduce/remove systemic racism from our institutions and ideally do whatever we can to address the role implicit racial bias plays in society. When you go beyond those core ideals it get's more hazy like any organization. The bias you speak of isn't going to randomly disappear by yelling. Every time a cop has an interaction with a potential suspect there is a non negligible chance that it can become dangerous and lethal, and it just so happens that blacks are more involved in those interactions than any other race relative to the rest of the population. The reason for this is probably multifactorial and systemic in nature, but that is the root of the problem, and ofcourse cops are going to be extra defensive against blacks until that fact changes. Now there are video examples of shootings where cops kill defenseless black victims, and these I believe are inexcusable, but quite possibly exaggerated by the media and are an example of shit cops with either racial bias or poor judgement. To say that there is a systemic racial bias against blacks by the cops is just another way of saying there is systemic racial bias period, and I don't see how yelling at cops will fix that. Cops are just players in the game who are trying to stay alive and do their job. The worse the environment they patrol, the worse they usually are just out of sheer adaptation.
It doesn't "just so happen", it's at least in part, an intentional effort to disproportionately police black people.
You say they are "inexcusable" but they have been excused for decades. Some of the more recent ones, the NC cop who shot an unarmed man in the back as he ran and then lied in his report and attempted to plant evidence comes to mind. He wasn't going to get arrested until some bystander came forward with contrary video to the story the police (and by extension the media) had already said was true.
Had there not been a video, it would have been excused like countless others have been.
Everyone has their own level of culpability, but if you're a cop and you see another cop violating someone's rights, it's your duty and your job to speak up, and too few are. So even if we accept the "bad apple" idea (this is actually a department wide situation in every major city in which it's been looked at) there aren't enough "good apples" getting them out of the bunch.
A woman screaming "rape!" doesn't solve her being raped (especially if people don't care to investigate her cries), or rape in general either, but no one is going to blame her for not appropriately articulating her problems with rape and why she needs it to stop but is incapable of making it stop on her own.
That said, Police/Political leadership bears more responsibility than any individual at the street level in my view. Additionally they are sometimes the absolute worst actors, the police chief outright lying in Ferguson comes to mind
|
I've come to the conclusion (a while back) that BLM isn't going to fix any problems at all. It's just going to grow a rift even further. It's actually segregating instead of integrating and it's not tackling any root problems whatsoever.
We have a nice expression in Dutch(or Flemish if the Dutch don't have it lel) for what they're doing: mopping with the faucet running.
If you want to fix everything that's wrong with a group of people not getting enough opportunities and being overly sensitivily profiled by other parts of society, you need to look at why this is happening. Because saying you want something (like equality) isn't going to make that happen per se. It would be nice that we would hear all these stories and see all this evidence and get all the compelling arguments and just instantly work as a collective to stop these inequalities, but would that have solved anything? Really? Would poverty and criminal activity and education suddenly become less of an issue because opportunities and profiling (with extreme escalation) has become equal for every population group?
This is like one of the most basic flaws I see in (political) movements: they don't offer systemic long term solutions, but provide short sighted temporary fixes that don't change anything as a whole. It's done on every level. And I understand why this is done, people want to see shit change in their lifetime, but it sadly won't fix the growing problems that linger underneath.
You say they are "inexcusable" but they have been excused for decades. Some of the more recent ones, the NC cop who shot an unarmed man in the back as he ran and then lied in his report and attempted to plant evidence comes to mind. He wasn't going to get arrested until some bystander came forward with contrary video to the story the police (and by extension the media) had already said was true.
The cop should be fired, jailed (if the trial finds him guilty, which he should be if justice exists) and he should never be a able to work as a servant of the people ever again (or just a cop, I'm not decided yet). Or he could become rehabilitated if needed (like in Norway). But he needs to be punished accordingly nonetheless.
But what can someone who doesn't have the resources nor the time for this shit do abot it? I can condemn it, sure, I could vote for a bill to change the justice system or the way the disciplinary board works. But more than that is out of my willingness to do. It's up to people who are truly passionate about it to make actual change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
