And another thing; the companies that are paid by the city to maintain the housing projects take take insane amounts of money and never actually maintain shit.
Unarmed man killed by police officer in NY - Page 7
Forum Index > General Forum |
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
And another thing; the companies that are paid by the city to maintain the housing projects take take insane amounts of money and never actually maintain shit. | ||
fruity.
England1711 Posts
One which much be answered (as someone mentioned above) Is why two rookie cops were working such a high risk area together. Two rookies working together wont ever learn as much as one being along side a seasoned veteren, surely? Why wasn't the safety on? Why did the officer have his finger on the trigger in the first place? I live in the UK, and thankfully guns aren't a part of every day life for the most of us. But in my youth, my school had a couple of outings to Bisley (a big gun club in South England) Lesson one was never have the finger on the trigger unless it's pointing at the target down-range. On November 22 2014 18:27 Incognoto wrote: everyone is happy to shit on the police time after time but i never, ever see anyone say "it's disgusting that in some areas the crime rate is so high" it's like, no one minds the fact that criminals commit crimes. no one ever complains about it like they complain about police officers when they mess up. police brutality is a reality but that gets shit on much more than crime itself for some reason apparently drug dealing and murder are OK as long as it's done in the private sector or something The above is a great point. You can also bet that those in the community who do know about crime, don't help by reporting those actively involved. This of course in no way justifies this tragic case. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States21795 Posts
On November 29 2014 17:23 fruity. wrote: Wow, so many valid points and differing points of view. Such a terrible event. One which much be answered (as someone mentioned above) Is why two rookie cops were working such a high risk area together. Two rookies working together wont ever learn as much as one being along side a seasoned veteren, surely? Why wasn't the safety on? Why did the officer have his finger on the trigger in the first place? I live in the UK, and thankfully guns aren't a part of every day life for the most of us. But in my youth, my school had a couple of outings to Bisley (a big gun club in South England) Lesson one was never have the finger on the trigger unless it's pointing at the target down-range. The above is a great point. You can also bet that those in the community who do know about crime, don't help by reporting those actively involved. This of course in no way justifies this tragic case. I don't remember who said it or where but I know I saw video of someone saying it was part of an intentional "Surge" They are intentionally taking fresh classes of recruits and throwing them into high-crime areas in an effort to increase 'police presence'. I can't find the video at the moment but I know I saw it. Bullshit drug laws are part of what makes these 'high crime' areas in the first place. Other than that crime is a complex issue and the people who you would be trying to modify would be criminals. Versus state sanctioned officers with the authority to use force up to and including lethal force. Who are charged with protecting the communities that are often being abused. So while public outcry against criminals (survive by abusing society) is well... always happening, public outrage against officers (hired to protect those people) has only been recently getting significant traction from people outside the communities they are abusing. During some of the worst abuses by police forces no one (outside of those groups) even thought there was really a problem. Television images of terrible abuses by the police during the civil rights movement stirred people outside the abused groups to notice that police were being abusive. That went away during the war on crime where the policing was terribly abusive yet everyone was (blindly) supporting the police because you know.. drugs... Now we are in a cycle of outrage again... Give it 10-20 years and we'll be back on the "war against some civilian group" gig | ||
fruity.
England1711 Posts
On November 29 2014 18:26 GreenHorizons wrote: Bullshit drug laws are part of what makes these 'high crime' areas in the first place. Other than that crime is a complex issue and the people who you would be trying to modify would be criminals. Agreed. I see a lot of drug use as just a form of self medication, people trying to deal with the life they have, and the situation they are in. Personally I couldn't care less if a person chooses to to take any drug - it's not my place to tell anyone anything - we should all be allowed to do as we wish so long as those actions don't harm others. The only issue I have is when crime is the source of income of drug use. And the price for some drugs is only high as it's illegal.. Which generates (or at least severly exacerbates) Criminality, gives gangs a source of easy income.. Which leads to poor, run down neighbourhoods.. Generations brought up with no prospects.. Which leads people wanting to self medicate to deal with shit.. Very. Viscious. Circle. Portugal decriminalised Heroin abuse, it's still a crime but not one which will get an instant prison term for small amounts (I don't know the correct terminology to use there). They added a whole series of outreach programs, giving abusers help and support, needle exchanges etc etc and so on. and guess what, heroin abuse went down. Go figure. Wondered slightly off topic here. Sorry. ps. I believe it was Nixon who started the so called war on drugs, and we all know what a fine Presidency he had. | ||
Ace
United States16096 Posts
As for the officer being scared - could be legit. But as a basic firearm safety measure you are taught to always have vision on your target sights and then confirm the kill. Why are you near a door with the gun drawn? Where is the flashlight for sights if this is needed? And lastly that area isn't even that dangerous, as I don't know anyone who comes out here and is scared for their life. This isn't 1989 anymore. It's an area of residence and you need to be held accountable for killing people even if it is an accident. | ||
Incognoto
France10234 Posts
On November 24 2014 01:38 oBlade wrote: Okay clearly you made no attempt to read what I said. I understood what you said and I don't agree with it at all really. There are those who have rules who follow and those who don't. So when someone who is following the rules screws up because they're trying to deal with the rule-breakers, I think that the blame should be put on those causing the problems in the first place: the criminals. I'm not saying we should accept police brutality (which exists) and ignore the problems which law enforcement causes (there are a few), but the brunt of criticism should be directed towards the criminals in my opinion; people shouldn't nitpick over smallish incidents either: it the criminals hadn't been doing illicit things in the first place the police wouldn't have had to come in the first place. Again, not to say that there aren't some police officers who abuse their position and yes, they should be criticized for doing so. But in a lot of cases I feel that the criminals are the ones who should be incriminated, especially since more often than not, the media's coverage of the incident isn't exactly impartial. | ||
wmb
Sweden282 Posts
| ||
mebeblood
United States27 Posts
"is changing how rookie officers are used fresh out of the academy to give them more training and time with more senior officers." | ||
mierin
United States4938 Posts
| ||
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On November 23 2014 14:38 Vegetarian wrote: It is likely you would not be in the business of starting a company that did that. Thankfully, in the free market anyone with an idea is allowed to test its viability by offering their idea for a cost in a purely voluntary transaction. The problem with central planning is that the solution to most difficult problems requires people to test their own resources in free competition/voluntary transactions to find the best solution. Government creates centrally planned monopolies that make competition illegal and force people to buy whatever the central planners of the time deemed best. I fail to see how this is a good solution, and I can see many reasons how it could be detrimental to people's standards of living. In case you still read this thread, your whole free market idea is mostly an imaginary fiction. The reality is, in a power vacuum, those who desire power will try to acquire power regardless of whether people want to "buy" their services or not. This is what has happened over centuries of human history; we constantly see the instability of a community let alone a province or country with no rulers; I challenge you to find an example of an anarchist community that lasted more than a few years. This is the reason why most of our history is dominated by a succession of tyrants or rulers of one form or another. Saying the "free market" should decide things is effectively ceding all control and hoping that the same thing which has happened for over a thousand years will not happen again. To put it lightly, it is not a good idea. The reality is we're stuck with our rulers, but the best we can do (and the best that humans wisely *have* done over the centuries) is try to win constitutional rights and freedoms, and the ability to restrain their government in various ways (democratic elections are a great control). The anarchist is the person who wants to erase all human progress because he/she believes that human history is mostly a lie and that outside of a state, everyone will freely cooperate in a spirit of brotherhood, and freely purchase and sell services as if we all lived in some utopia. | ||
Anesthetic
United States225 Posts
On November 29 2014 15:27 TheFish7 wrote: NYC isn't Aleppo there is no reason to walk around with a drawn gun. I was in East New York not 3 weeks ago and never once felt unsafe. This would be a case of a dumbass cop making a tragic mistake. And another thing; the companies that are paid by the city to maintain the housing projects take take insane amounts of money and never actually maintain shit. I think your misunderstanding where the incident actually took place, East New York Brooklyn is a specific neighborhood. | ||
Foblos
United States426 Posts
Not to say people shouldn't look at things with sober judgment and that the actions of some ought to be inscrutable to others, but we really need to stop this race nonsense. Participate in the Democratic system well and you can put trustworthy judges in place who will judge cops with justice when they shoot someone, armed or not, and regardless of genetic descent. Otherwise it's just going to become an "Us and Them," but with no distinguishable line. The nation is just going to tear itself apart. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States21795 Posts
On December 01 2014 05:27 Foblos wrote: I think there needs to come a moment when people just quit looking at race. This may be news to some, but there are actually a lot of black people spread pretty far around the US. There are heavily ethnic areas like parts of NY that have dominant black populations and therefore it shouldn't be surprising if one gets shot. This country is supposed to be a great melting pot where everyone from any background comes together and becomes a single people not based on age race or sex. Instead, something like this happens - something which we know nothing about first hand, and that which we do know comes from media which has a tendency to over damatize everything - and people want to make it about a cop shooting an African American (Relevant side rant: If he's an American, he's not at African American; he's an American.) and then this gigantic race war pops up where the fighting even reaches people allegedly located in DPRK who then also offer an opinion. Not to say people shouldn't look at things with sober judgment and that the actions of some ought to be inscrutable to others, but we really need to stop this race nonsense. Participate in the Democratic system well and you can put trustworthy judges in place who will judge cops with justice when they shoot someone, armed or not, and regardless of genetic descent. Otherwise it's just going to become an "Us and Them," but with no distinguishable line. The nation is just going to tear itself apart. If only it was as simple as "just quit looking at race"... Just like when a fly ball is hit in the air, when confronted with someone of a different color/'race', your brain makes a bunch of snap judgments/predictions about where the ball/person will 'end up'. People don't generally just think, "how can I ruin a minorities day" or something to that effect. They see 2 strange men walk by the first a white guy in jeans and a T-shirt, then a black guy dressed the same way. Them getting more scared by the black guy isn't generally because they are some raging racist, but because they have been conditioned to feel that way. The person might not think that it had anything to do with race because they didn't actually "think" about their reaction, it was just a reaction. The reaction is based in deep rooted conditioning and an instinct that even very young children have displayed. The conditioning being black men are more dangerous than white men, the instinct being us and them. | ||
Foblos
United States426 Posts
On December 01 2014 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote: If only it was as simple as "just quit looking at race"... Just like when a fly ball is hit in the air, when confronted with someone of a different color/'race', your brain makes a bunch of snap judgments/predictions about where the ball/person will 'end up'. People don't generally just think, "how can I ruin a minorities day" or something to that effect. They see 2 strange men walk by the first a white guy in jeans and a T-shirt, then a black guy dressed the same way. Them getting more scared by the black guy isn't generally because they are some raging racist, but because they have been conditioned to feel that way. The person might not think that it had anything to do with race because they didn't actually "think" about their reaction, it was just a reaction. The reaction is based in deep rooted conditioning and an instinct that even very young children have displayed. The conditioning being black men are more dangerous than white men, the instinct being us and them. Recondition. I'm from a small, completely white mountain town. I moved to LA and experienced exactly what you described. I reconditioned, and it isn't hard. Regardless, the snap conditioned judgments can be assessed and judged by the fuller intellect and acted on or not. It doesn't change the fact that this race war nonsense is a political conversation and it's unhelpful. Cops should be tried when they shoot anyone, whether they kill or not and if this is already a thing (aside from just review boards. I'm talking criminal assessment) it needs to be much more widely publicized. I expect, and welcome, criticism on my stance on what should be, but I am strongly convicted that discussing whether it was racially motivated or not is worthless. Remember the passion of Treyvon Martin and how as new evidence continually came to light people's opinions were swayed? It isn't about race anymore - very few true racists exist. It's about the power and the lack of oversight that cops have. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States21795 Posts
On December 01 2014 06:51 Foblos wrote: Recondition. I'm from a small, completely white mountain town. I moved to LA and experienced exactly what you described. I reconditioned, and it isn't hard. Regardless, the snap conditioned judgments can be assessed and judged by the fuller intellect and acted on or not. It doesn't change the fact that this race war nonsense is a political conversation and it's unhelpful. Cops should be tried when they shoot anyone, whether they kill or not and if this is already a thing (aside from just review boards. I'm talking criminal assessment) it needs to be much more widely publicized. I expect, and welcome, criticism on my stance on what should be, but I am strongly convicted that discussing whether it was racially motivated or not is worthless. Remember the passion of Treyvon Martin and how as new evidence continually came to light people's opinions were swayed? It isn't about race anymore - very few true racists exist. It's about the power and the lack of oversight that cops have. First, on reconditioning, those people would have to acknowledge they need to be 'reconditioned', good f'ing luck with that... It's not like we (black people and our allies) haven't been trying for decades if not centuries. The hardest people to reach are the ones who are sure they can't be racist. Second, I wouldn't say 'very few'. The number of racists easily eclipses the entire populations of Native Americans, Asians, and Pacific Islanders combined in the US. That's a lot of racists running around out there. Of course much fewer of them are doing it in bed sheets on main street but they didn't stop being racist. Now it's pretty impossible to nail down how many 'racists' there are in the US, you would first have to decide what exactly makes someone a 'racist'. Pretty much everyone says and does racist things intentionally or not, during their life but that doesn't make everyone 'racist'. But my point is pretending like it's a few guy out in WV doesn't do anyone any service. In the case of Trayvon Martin, I admit how race was used by many was inappropriate, but the discussion about the role race played is not 'worthless'. In fact it is an essential part of the 'reconditioning' you are advocating for. Another example would be the 12 year old boy with a pellet gun who was shot dead in the park. Aimless rhetoric about the races of those involved is counterproductive as you suggest, but the races and prejudices can't be ignored when a 12 year old with a realistic pellet gun is perceived to be a 20 year old with a real gun. I'll show you two recent incidents and try to see if you can see what I am talking about. The way race plays a role in these two different incidents isn't easily captured in a few sentences. But since you are aware of the conditioning you might be able to see what I'm talking about and why the officer who shot the boy will swear up and down race had nothing to do with it, and is who I am talking about being some of the hardest to reach. EDIT: All that being said I am on board with black people doing their part to help. If blacks could get our criminality rates universally lower than whites there would be absolutely nothing but racism and prejudice left behind what we see in the criminal justice system. Doesn't mean people would just sign on to the facts... It's easily demonstrable that a white person is ridiculously more likely to be made a victim by another white person than they are by a black person but like I said before our inability to accurately assess and act on threats (based on available facts) on the individual level for people and cops alike is also at the root of much of these problems. I mean just think about the simple math. As about 2/3 of the population it's not a surprise to find out they commit about 2/3 of the crime. Also the prejudices on what ends up being a 'crime' play a large role in such statistics. | ||
Foblos
United States426 Posts
On December 01 2014 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote: First, on reconditioning, those people would have to acknowledge they need to be 'reconditioned', good f'ing luck with that... It's not like we (black people and our allies) haven't been trying for decades if not centuries. The hardest people to reach are the ones who are sure they can't be racist. Second, I wouldn't say 'very few'. The number of racists easily eclipses the entire populations of Native Americans, Asians, and Pacific Islanders combined in the US. That's a lot of racists running around out there. Of course much fewer of them are doing it in bed sheets on main street but they didn't stop being racist. Now it's pretty impossible to nail down how many 'racists' there are in the US, you would first have to decide what exactly makes someone a 'racist'. Pretty much everyone says and does racist things intentionally or not, during their life but that doesn't make everyone 'racist'. But my point is pretending like it's a few guy out in WV doesn't do anyone any service. In the case of Trayvon Martin, I admit how race was used by many was inappropriate, but the discussion about the role race played is not 'worthless'. In fact it is an essential part of the 'reconditioning' you are advocating for. Another example would be the 12 year old boy with a pellet gun who was shot dead in the park. Aimless rhetoric about the races of those involved is counterproductive as you suggest, but the races and prejudices can't be ignored when a 12 year old with a realistic pellet gun is perceived to be a 20 year old with a real gun. I'll show you two recent incidents and try to see if you can see what I am talking about. http://youtu.be/RjKTnRCpYZM?t=10s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_FkzbTf-KM The way race plays a role in these two different incidents isn't easily captured in a few sentences. But since you are aware of the conditioning you might be able to see what I'm talking about and why the officer who shot the boy will swear up and down race had nothing to do with it, and is who I am talking about being some of the hardest to reach. EDIT: All that being said I am on board with black people doing their part to help. If blacks could get our criminality rates universally lower than whites there would be absolutely nothing but racism and prejudice left behind what we see in the criminal justice system. Doesn't mean people would just sign on to the facts... It's easily demonstrable that a white person is ridiculously more likely to be made a victim by another white person than they are by a black person but like I said before our inability to accurately assess and act on threats (based on available facts) on the individual level for people and cops alike is also at the root of much of these problems. I mean just think about the simple math. As about 2/3 of the population it's not a surprise to find out they commit about 2/3 of the crime. You raise a fair point. I'm being far too hyperbolic. In conversation about the power and the structure of the police force I agree that race needs to be a discussion because there is a disproportionate number of (covered. Maybe not entirely representative?) black people killed by cops. But again, I think this needs to be an internal criminal thing. We don't freak out and cover news stories when people get into altercations, even if its between different race and even if people are injured (Treyvon Martin excluded as that did appear at first glace to be racially motivated). As I see it, the fear the media is driving is based on the integrity of cops who have been given too much autonomy, and I think that needs to be the primary national discussion. Not race politics. Regarding your second point, I don't have empirical evidence to support my claim, but I'm speaking from experience as a white person who encounters a lot of other white people that also haven't had much exposure to black people. There is a little unease, sure, but not racism. In my experience I would describe it much the same as a baby will be scared of new people, even if their blood relatives. If you have any empirical evidence to change my mind, post it. Otherwise I don't have anywhere else to go on this point and concede on lack of interest in arguing. Now, to the two videos. I take from your description that the first video is shortly before the kid (with a pellet gun) gets killed. The second is fairly obvious. I'd like to ask one question and then point out one extremely significant difference and discuss why it's a problem. My question is simple. Why did the boy pull out a pellet gun, point it at the officer and take cover? I don't really care who you are (you may even be a petite white girl in a frilly skirt), that is sure as shit going to get a cop to draw a weapon on you, and in this case put you down. I also don't know if the cop was intending a kill shot or was looking for a disabling shot like in the second video and didn't get it due to all the factors + the kids body size. My observation is that in the first video, the cop rolls up alone, without a partner at all. And he drives recklessly toward the kid, whom he ought to have recognized as a kid (don't follow the story, so if he didn't then he's a dumbass and in my suggestion that is additional evidence that should be added to a criminal trial). In the second video, there is a full swat team, WITH A SHIELD and plenty of cover, that has cleared and secured the area. If he is suspected to be suicidal they send someone trained to assess as well (firsthand experience). This was an EXTREMELY controlled situation, drastically different from the first situation. Additionally, the man wasn't taking positions like he was going to get involved in a fire fight, but seemed to have some shit going on. The police seem to have been acting compassionately and slowly as they ought to have. This assessment is based completely on the video, and is subject to being utterly wrong. The problem I see is the structure. When you're sending a single man or a single woman into a potentially lethal situation of course they are going to be on edge. The conditioning is going to be heightened and the rational will be more removed in favor of self preservation. Send teams of two or three; a squad car and a bike cop that stick together and people feel safer. Of course, it opens to the door to police brutality but I'd rather have a black person beaten rather than shot and killed, and in both cases I would suggest they again be treated like criminal cases. Edit: saw your edit. Nothing to comment on. We're in agreement here. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States21795 Posts
On December 01 2014 08:01 Foblos wrote: You raise a fair point. I'm being far too hyperbolic. In conversation about the power and the structure of the police force I agree that race needs to be a discussion because there is a disproportionate number of (covered. Maybe not entirely representative?) black people killed by cops. But again, I think this needs to be an internal criminal thing. We don't freak out and cover news stories when people get into altercations, even if its between different race and even if people are injured (Treyvon Martin excluded as that did appear at first glace to be racially motivated). As I see it, the fear the media is driving is based on the integrity of cops who have been given too much autonomy, and I think that needs to be the primary national discussion. Not race politics. Regarding your second point, I don't have empirical evidence to support my claim, but I'm speaking from experience as a white person who encounters a lot of other white people that also haven't had much exposure to black people. There is a little unease, sure, but not racism. In my experience I would describe it much the same as a baby will be scared of new people, even if their blood relatives. If you have any empirical evidence to change my mind, post it. Otherwise I don't have anywhere else to go on this point and concede on lack of interest in arguing. Now, to the two videos. I take from your description that the first video is shortly before the kid (with a pellet gun) gets killed. The second is fairly obvious. I'd like to ask one question and then point out one extremely significant difference and discuss why it's a problem. My question is simple. Why did the boy pull out a pellet gun, point it at the officer and take cover? I don't really care who you are (you may even be a petite white girl in a frilly skirt), that is sure as shit going to get a cop to draw a weapon on you, and in this case put you down. I also don't know if the cop was intending a kill shot or was looking for a disabling shot like in the second video and didn't get it due to all the factors + the kids body size. My observation is that in the first video, the cop rolls up alone, without a partner at all. And he drives recklessly toward the kid, whom he ought to have recognized as a kid (don't follow the story, so if he didn't then he's a dumbass and in my suggestion that is additional evidence that should be added to a criminal trial). In the second video, there is a full swat team, WITH A SHIELD, that has cleared and secured the area. If he is suspected to be suicidal they send someone trained to assess as well (firsthand experience). This was an EXTREMELY controlled situation, drastically different from the first situation. Additionally, the man wasn't taking positions like he was going to get involved in a fire fight, but seemed to have some shit going on. The police seem to have been acting compassionately and slowly as they ought to have. This assessment is based completely on the video, and is subject to being utterly wrong. The problem I see is the structure. When you're sending a single man or a single woman into a potentially lethal situation of course they are going to be on edge. The conditioning is going to be heightened and the rational will be more removed in favor of self preservation. Send teams of two or three; a squad car and a bike cop that stick together and people feel safer. Of course, it opens to the door to police brutality but I'd rather have a black person beaten rather than shot and killed, and in both cases I would suggest they again be treated like criminal cases. Edit: saw your edit. Nothing to comment on. We're in agreement here. I think we are pretty much in agreement. Basically I'm just saying that the inept policing isn't just a result of poor policy/training/structure. That the way those came to be, was influenced by the very prejudices that need to be addressed. However I agree the argument gets more support when you leave race out of it, even if it plays an important role. Hence why civil rights arguments are often framed with how "Americans" should be treated, rather than how "X group of Americans" should be treated. Particularly when meeting the opposition in debate. While focusing on what unites the problem across multiple demographics strengthens it's general support, it also dilutes the arguments of the individual groups experiencing specific problems unique to those groups. | ||
Foblos
United States426 Posts
On December 01 2014 08:24 GreenHorizons wrote: I think we are pretty much in agreement. Basically I'm just saying that the inept policing isn't just a result of poor policy/training/structure. That the way those came to be, was influenced by the very prejudices that need to be addressed. However I agree the argument gets more support when you leave race out of it, even if it plays an important role. Hence why civil rights arguments are often framed with how "Americans" should be treated, rather than how "X group of Americans" should be treated. Particularly when meeting the opposition in debate. While focusing on what unites the problem across multiple demographics strengthens it's general support, it also dilutes the arguments of the individual groups experiencing specific problems unique to those groups. I find we're much more in agreement than not as well I'm glad this thread has yet to devolve and as our conversation has naturally progressed to the point of discussing racial relations, I'd like to move a little away from the starting point of the thread, and if this is too much or too unnatural a mod can let me know and we can move to PM I've been toying of the idea of natural segregation, which is essentially what we do now but speak against. As a white man, I'm inexorably involved in both manhood and whiteness. That isn't a bad thing. Nor is it a bad thing that I'm concerned with my local context in LA with less enthusiasm about more removed contexts. I still care deeply, but I just acknowledge that I don't expect people from Ohio to help me with my homeless friends and I am likewise limited. At best I can offer opinion, as I'm doing here. A black person will always be a black person, and an Irishman will always be drunk (just kidding. You get the point though). These things wont change and there is a natural segregation and division that comes from that, but it doesn't need to be bad. I deal in Theology and it is very much in vogue to talk about contextual theology, or theology from the margins. Without getting to deeply into it, it is primarily South American and black communities that are critiquing the way that Christian religion has been largely confined to white males throughout time and has come to be understood as being headquartered in America, which frankly oppresses a lot of people in a lot of ways (I don't consider this to be important to our current conversation and am not going to bother in engaging it in this thread). In order to hear the voices of those who feel themselves to be marginalized by the authorities that be, you first have to have somewhat of an understanding of the central structure. You can't hear their voice if you're partial only to the structure (which in our conversation I interpret as the problem disseminated throughout multiple demographics), but they have no voice without the structure (I'd rather this be the case since it implies an end to oppression, but for the sake of our conversation this is interpreted as the focus of individual groups). To use another analogy, your skin might be pigmented darker than mine, but if I cut you and you cut me our blood will both bleed red. Essentially, I'm arguing that you can't be an individual without relation to community, you can't be a community if you're removed from the whole world, but you can't be part of the world if you're not an individual located in a context of time and space. You can't be unified unless you're diversified and diversity without unity will be the end of our species. In this sense I'm totally for segregation, even racial, so long as it doesn't disrupt the integrity of the unity and provides for non-segregated integration. I also argue that this interpretation should be encouraged, and not restrained in favor of preaching what seems to be a failing system of perfect individual and universal equality. | ||
Disregard
China10252 Posts
Look at the turnover for Ferguson, the media does a great job in manipulating the content. While you have constant looting, riots and theft to innocent victims within the Ferguson community, they show hyped up reports of the verdict and trial. Then you have a civil rights leader such as the notoriously corrupt Al Sharpton as the representative for the Black community... It doesn't help in promoting your rightful cause to the public. edit: Honestly if you were to put yourself in an area you're not familiar to and is notorious for crime, it will be psychologically taxing and you are going to be paranoid. Obviously shooting by Peter Liang is unjustified because he wasn't even suppose to have his weapon drawn at-the-ready but the fact that he had to remain so vigilante is normal behavior. Everyone is a conformist, you can't deny it. | ||
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
| ||