Distrusting authority is a pretty good rule in general. Assuming that those in authority are acting maliciously any time they take any action whatsoever is not the same thing.
It is when they have a bad history of putting people with your skin color in the ground even when they obey orders.
Distrust means not just assuming you can take something at face value. It doesn't mean assuming that the face value is wrong. Distrust of authority is healthy. Riots are dangerous as fuck, so starting one when all you have is belief and no actual knowledge is a pretty shitty thing to do.
Like no one ever intentionally starts a riot. Save for those trying to make your side look worse, most of the shit is a heat of the moment decision. Herd mentality is an interesting and terrifying topic, but the short of it is a bunch of people acting together can get suuuuuper dangerous even when every individual member would never engage in a riot like activity. There is a reason you send someone to blend in and try to get the crowd to start doing something stupid as a means to justify action. There is a whole lot of social psychology research for why this works. It has been hashed out pretty well in this thread though I feel.
...so the rioting has nothing at all to do with whether the cops are perceived to be killing black people without justification? Because I'm pretty sure that's exactly why it happens.
"A riot is the language of the unheard." Try listening.
Funny, isn't it, that so many hold civilians to the standard of police, but police to a standard somewhere below a civilian? When blacks are approached by police, we are expected to be perfect- in our actions, in our statements, even in our appearance- or our murders are labeled justice. Meanwhile, a cop can jump at his own shadow and kill someone, and we're told it's okay because "they have a stressful job."
Curious how the legion of people who criticize how black people go about protesting shrug when asked if maybe- just maybe- police should take more care not to murder the people they've sworn to protect. I'd really like one of these fine folk to enlighten me about what is an acceptable form of protest, since we've eliminated marching in silence, sit ins, chanting, kneeling during the national anthem, and stating that our lives actually matter. Should we head down to Boston Harbor with some Lipton, or would that be considered thuggish destruction of property?
About 99% of that is incredibly presumptuous and incorrect as a description for me. Seriously, what the fuck? Step 1: stop assuming you know what people think and how they'll treat you. I never got an actual response to my question, so here's my logic: cops are perceived (correctly or incorrectly) to unjustly shoot black people in a given case -> increase in rioting.
Therefore
Reduction in incorrect perception of cops unjustly shooting black people -> decrease in rioting.
In plain language, riots happen because protesters see cops kill black folk without a good reason. If protesters assume that all shootings of black people are unjust, the amount of rioting goes up even though the number of unjustified shootings has not.
If the police/justice system/city councils keep giving protesters good reason to assume all shootings of black people are unjust, the amount of rioting goes up even though the number of unjustified shootings has not.
Note, none of this is happening in a vacuum here. There's a long history of police brutality towards black Americans. I've had relatives from other countries ask me what the hell is up in the US with cops shooting black people for no reason. This isn't a weirdly specific and persistent case of mass insanity here.
That's a stupid way to word things. The only "good reason" to assume all shootings of black people are unjust would be an inability to find a single case of a justified shooting of a black person. That's how math works. The only "good reason" to assume that a shooting is unjustified is a belief that unjustified shootings overwhelmingly outweigh justified shootings. Where's the threshold? Fifteen to one? Yes, the system is super fucked up, but does anyone here actually believe that there are fifteen times as many unjustified shootings as justified shootings?
Okay, well, I thought you were saying "all" in a loose rhetorical sense, and not in a strict sense, because ... well, that seemed pretty fucking absurd to me, that you might legitimately think that a single false positive might delegitimize a general presumption of positives being true. That's just... not how humans work, as per my admittedly anecdotal experience of them.
I'm really tired right now, both physically and just of having to refocus people in this thread time and time again, so I'm just going to bullet-point this:
You're not counting the right things if you are going to be counting. People don't protest the shootings of every black person, so the question you're asking is already flawed (and makes a pretty bad faith assumption too).
The various protests are over many different things, sometimes not even over shootings (Freddie Gray was not shot, for example).
The various protesters are many different people, who are differently motivated.
The protesters are motivated by much more than just whether the shooting itself was justified or not. This is an absurd reduction that some of us are engaging here in this thread, as though because one event precedes another, then obviously event #1 is the sole and only cause of event #2. Which isn't how history works.
Human psychology does not demand 100% reliability to form beliefs. If every time we meet, I punch you 99% of the time and pull my punch 1% of the time, you will still flinch when I cock my fist. If you're looking to establish a firm threshold, then okay, I guess you can engage in that pointless activity?
If you're going to try and find that threshold and count incidents, even ignoring all the above caveats, you'd still be counting the wrong thing, because people aren't affected by events they're not aware of.
Honestly, you guys seem like you're desperate to find some irrationality here to justify a dismissal of this movement, and that's just a completely backwards way to approach things. You can always find an irrationality if you just don't look hard enough; you should be trying your best to understand what's going on and why, and then if you fail, that's an interesting data point.
Personally, no, the Boston sovereign citizen shooting probably wasn't one to get outraged about. But I also completely understand why people got outraged about it immediately, because the immediate details were that it was mother with her child in her own home. Did it turn out to probably be a justified shooting? Yes. Does that make the outrage over it incomprehensible? No. Does that delegitimize the larger protest movement? Also no.
On the other hand, that North Miami shooting..., we're all completely agreed that that shooting was fucked up, right? That that officer most clearly and obviously royally-fucked-up in AT LEAST one way, right? Well, it's been 2 months, and he hasn't been disciplined in any way other than being placed on leave, and the investigation on the incident has gone dark. And I gotta wonder, maybe if blacks in Miami had risen up and rioted over that incident, maybe that's the actual goddamned price to admission for justice nowadays for black people who've been on the receiving end of police violence. Maybe the problem is that if that if the black community doesn't do anything, these incidents will continue happening over and over and be swept under the rug - justified and unjustified alike - and the only way to spur the justice system into doing something that even remotely resembles its duty is to do something and this is the only thing they can do.
Except that wasn't even the argument we were even having at that point in the conversation. We were discussing the automatic assumption of guilt. I provided an example of where this was wrong.
I'm sick of the "straw man" argument being used to shut down any dissenting opinion.
When you have black people shooting unarmed cops with their hands up in broad daylight because "i was worried that cop was going to pull a gun from a closed window and shoot me with it" and everyone assumes that the cop probably deserved to get killed that way, that's when your attempt at false equivalence will apply.
Likewise, if two black guys pin a cop to the ground and shots him execution style and people start defending the killers as being inn the right.
Otherwise, the accusation of automatic assumption of guilt is total crap. No one is automatically assuming police to be guilty. They're pointing to specific examples where they hold policed officers to the same standards that everyone else will be held to.
Please point out for me where anyone said the guy in Tulsa probably deserved to get killed that way? Otherwise please spare me your bullshit Schrod. You keep trying to I steer insinuations into things people aren't saying.
Point me to where the "automatic assumption of guilt" is applied to cops.
I have. Literally in the part of the quote tree you deleted. Stop deflecting or maybe actually start arguing with things people are actually saying.
Are you referring to this?
How? There have been incidents where this was the case. Not the lying in court, but there was an incident in Minneapolis last winter where the claim was the the individual was handcuffed and then shot executioner style. After months of protest, the videos were released clearly showing the individual (Jamar Clark if you'd like to
look it up http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jamar-clark-shooting-no-charges-against-2-minneapolis-cops-involved-n547941 ) was not handcuffed, and was wrestling on the ground with one of the cops when he was shot.
It's not a straw man when there are precedents of it happening.
Okay, let's look into the Jamar Clark case, shall we?
Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists and supporters protested for days outside the police precinct protesting against information hiding, demanding for release of police dashcam and bodycam videos containing material evidence that can settle the truth of police accounts of the incident.
Demanding that the police be more forthcoming and transparent with their is not "automatic assumption of guilt." It's basic accountability.
On the one hand, you have a situation where the police assume that random unarmed black people are animals who need to be killed in cold blood.
On the other hand, you have a group of protestors insisting that we should demand that police officers be more transparent so we can verify their claims rather than simply accepting them at face value.
These two things are not equivalent.
The other big difference is how the assumption is used. Even if some people assume that all cops are bad, the US Justice system isn't using that to justify the murder of innocent police officers. OTOH, when cops assume that all black people are animals, it's so they can get off from any form of punishment.
Can you point to a single example where a black person got away with killing an unarmed police officer simply because of his assumption that police officers in general are scary? Because police officers are getting away with that on a near daily basis.
The point that I am trying to make and that you are ignoring is that rioting is not the solution and "lashing out" is not an excuse. Most people in this thread seem to be in unison on how the police are acting, which is why it's important to focus on the BLM response if you want any critical thought or interesting discussion in this thread instead of the "Cops are evil" carousel.
Blaming black people for the racism that happens to them by referring to them as animals isn't much of a solution either.
You know things that could be solutions? Body cams on police officer. Independent investigation and oversight when shootings happen. Better training and accountability when people file complaints.
Now, guess who's standing in the way of these actual solutions that would completely deflate the impulse to riot? Hint: it's not the black community.
So instead of actually responding to what I posted you're just going to retreat into the safety of "arguments" that everyone already agrees with?
Really? Everyone already agrees with the use of body cams on police officers?
Because that's going to be huge news to all the police departments that have rejected them.
The point that I am trying to make and that you are ignoring is that rioting is not the solution and "lashing out" is not an excuse. Most people in this thread seem to be in unison on how the police are acting, which is why it's important to focus on the BLM response if you want any critical thought or interesting discussion in this thread instead of the "Cops are evil" carousel.
Blaming black people for the racism that happens to them by referring to them as animals isn't much of a solution either.
You know things that could be solutions? Body cams on police officer. Independent investigation and oversight when shootings happen. Better training and accountability when people file complaints.
Now, guess who's standing in the way of these actual solutions that would completely deflate the impulse to riot? Hint: it's not the black community.
So instead of actually responding to what I posted you're just going to retreat into the safety of "arguments" that everyone already agrees with?
Really? Everyone already agrees with the use of body cams on police officers?
Because that's going to be huge news to all the police departments that have rejected them.
I was referring to everyone in this thread. Again, you know this, because you are an adult that can pick up on context clues. Why do you keep intentionally misrepresenting the posts you are quoting?
Unless you can find someone in the thread who disagrees with the concept of more widespread bodycams I guess. I don't remember reading any posts from anyone who thinks bodycameras are a bad thing, regardless of how they feel about the BLM movement.
I was referring to everyone in this thread. Again, you know this, because you are an adult that can pick up on context clues. Why do you keep intentionally misrepresenting the posts you are quoting?
Unless you can find someone in the thread who disagrees with the concept of more widespread bodycams I guess. I don't remember reading any posts from anyone who thinks bodycameras are a bad thing, regardless of how they feel about the BLM movement.
You're blaming rioters for not having real solution, but you're avoiding discussion on what the real solutions actually are and who's getting in the way.
The rioters aren't the ones preventing body cams from happening. If anything, body cams works against the rioters, because it mean the rioters will be held more accountable for their own actions.
Also, who is talking about how rioters feel about bodycameras? I'm talking about how this thread feels about bodycameras, which seems to be a pretty unanimous thumbs up regardless of how they feel about police/BLM, which is why it's a safe argument, so why do you keep retreating to it?
Also, who is talking about how rioters feel about bodycameras? I'm talking about how this thread feels about bodycameras, which seems to be a pretty unanimous thumbs up regardless of how they feel about police/BLM, which is why it's a safe argument, so why do you keep retreating to it?
So you want to criticize the rioters for their beliefs, but you don't want to discuss what those beliefs actually are because apparently their beliefs are off topic when other people wish to discuss them.
You wonder why people don't trust the cops. The fact that cops are opposed to a solution that we have damned near unanimous consensus on in this thread is a good reason why people don't trust them.
Also, who is talking about how rioters feel about bodycameras? I'm talking about how this thread feels about bodycameras, which seems to be a pretty unanimous thumbs up regardless of how they feel about police/BLM, which is why it's a safe argument, so why do you keep retreating to it?
So you want to criticize the rioters for their beliefs, but you don't want to discuss what those beliefs actually are because apparently their beliefs are off topic when other people wish to discuss them.
You wonder why people don't trust the cops. The fact that cops are opposed to a solution that we have damned near unanimous consensus on in this thread is a good reason why people don't trust them.
What are you even talking about?
Rioting won't help the situation is the core ideal I'm pushing here, it has nothing to do with the rioter's "beliefs". Do you think that the rioters believe that rioting is going to somehow help race relations? I thought they were just reflexively "lashing out"?
When did I ever "wonder why people don't trust the cops"? Now you're just pulling things out of thin air.
It's odd that they won't release the video footage.
I haven't even heard a justification for it. Have they not even bothered to provide a reason?
I thought I also read that North Carolina has passed a law (effective Oct. 1) that basically forbids the release of dashcam/bodycam video without a court order? What the hell?
It's odd that they won't release the video footage.
I haven't even heard a justification for it. Have they not even bothered to provide a reason?
I thought I also read that North Carolina has passed a law (effective Oct. 1) that basically forbids the release of dashcam/bodycam video without a court order? What the hell?
Regardless of whether or not there was a gun in his hand, if the video doesn't capture it explicitely they might be worried about its release being inciteful. Alternately they might think it in poor taste to publically release a video where a man is shot to death. The family will be able to see the video though.
Ideally the footage would be released simply to set a precedent that officer involved shootings will be met with 100% transparency by default, barring circumstances (the family does not want the video released, etc). That's not the direction they are headed though.
SmokeStacks on
0
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
Also, who is talking about how rioters feel about bodycameras? I'm talking about how this thread feels about bodycameras, which seems to be a pretty unanimous thumbs up regardless of how they feel about police/BLM, which is why it's a safe argument, so why do you keep retreating to it?
So you want to criticize the rioters for their beliefs, but you don't want to discuss what those beliefs actually are because apparently their beliefs are off topic when other people wish to discuss them.
You wonder why people don't trust the cops. The fact that cops are opposed to a solution that we have damned near unanimous consensus on in this thread is a good reason why people don't trust them.
What are you even talking about?
Rioting won't help the situation is the core ideal I'm pushing here, it has nothing to do with the rioter's "beliefs". Do you think that the rioters believe that rioting is going to somehow help race relations? I thought they were just reflexively "lashing out"?
When did I ever "wonder why people don't trust the cops"? Now you're just pulling things out of thin air.
it has been said multiple times in this thread, that when people who are marginalized feel that every other option available to them is being summarily ignored, that the only way to make people take notice is to start breaking shit, people will start breaking shit.
And you keep denying them that.
+11
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
It's odd that they won't release the video footage.
I haven't even heard a justification for it. Have they not even bothered to provide a reason?
I thought I also read that North Carolina has passed a law (effective Oct. 1) that basically forbids the release of dashcam/bodycam video without a court order? What the hell?
Yeah, earlier in the thread. Not that it will impact this case at the rate things are going. The Charlotte chief seems the sort to 'lose' the footage, what with his 'Transparency is in the eye of the beholder' line.
RE: Rioting; It falls into the category of, "That don't make it right, but I can understand."
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
It's odd that they won't release the video footage.
I haven't even heard a justification for it. Have they not even bothered to provide a reason?
I thought I also read that North Carolina has passed a law (effective Oct. 1) that basically forbids the release of dashcam/bodycam video without a court order? What the hell?
Regardless of whether or not there was a gun in his hand, if the video doesn't capture it explicitely they might be worried about its release being inciteful. Alternately they might think it in poor taste to publically release a video where a man is shot to death. The family will be able to see the video though.
Ideally the footage would be released simply to set a precedent that officer involved shootings will be met with 100% transparency by default, barring circumstances (the family does not want the video released, etc). That's not the direction they are headed though.
Well, whether or not the video is inflammatory, they've already got people rioting in the streets.
Unless the family has expressly forbidden them from releasing the video, I would think the loss of transparency should outweigh any concerns about good taste.
it has been said multiple times in this thread, that when people who are marginalized feel that every other option available to them is being summarily ignored, that the only way to make people take notice is to start breaking shit, people will start breaking shit.
And you keep denying them that.
You can justify it any way you like, it will not help the cause. It doesn't matter if you think it's right, or just, or even simply understandable, it still will not help the cause.
You can romanticize it until you are blue in the face, but it will not help the cause.
it has been said multiple times in this thread, that when people who are marginalized feel that every other option available to them is being summarily ignored, that the only way to make people take notice is to start breaking shit, people will start breaking shit.
And you keep denying them that.
You can justify it any way you like, it will not help the cause. It doesn't matter if you think it's right, or just, or even simply understandable, it still will not help the cause.
You can romanticize it until you are blue in the face, but it will not help the cause.
Maybe black people can protest in a way that won't get widely criticised
Maybe black people can protest in a way that won't get widely criticised
Like, say, not standing for the National Anthem
Nobody could object to that
Maybe they could peacefully march on Washington.
The last time they did that it led to one of the most powerful speeches in recorded history and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
1) The movement hasn't got an MLK Jr. to do that which I'm aware of, 2) it's not like the police weren't going to pitch a fit even if they did that (look how they're reacted to Colin Kaepernick sitting out a national anthem) and 3) MLK Jr's peaceful protests got broken up violently by police in the past.
Maybe black people can protest in a way that won't get widely criticised
Like, say, not standing for the National Anthem
Nobody could object to that
Maybe they could peacefully march on Washington.
The last time they did that it led to one of the most powerful speeches in recorded history and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The alternative interpretation is that widespread rioting and escalating conflict and general societal instability forced the state to make concessions.
Or that a mix of the two phenomena was what forced their hand.
You're clearly a student of the American school system that completely whitewashes the Civil Rights era, no wonder you're clutching your pearls so tightly when rioting's happening.
Opty on
+22
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
it has been said multiple times in this thread, that when people who are marginalized feel that every other option available to them is being summarily ignored, that the only way to make people take notice is to start breaking shit, people will start breaking shit.
And you keep denying them that.
You can justify it any way you like, it will not help the cause. It doesn't matter if you think it's right, or just, or even simply understandable, it still will not help the cause.
You can romanticize it until you are blue in the face, but it will not help the cause.
Speaking of romanticization, one of the most celebrated moments in US history was people getting mad and breaking shit. Only that's okay because it was white people in the relatively distant past.
+6
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
Distrusting authority is a pretty good rule in general. Assuming that those in authority are acting maliciously any time they take any action whatsoever is not the same thing.
It is when they have a bad history of putting people with your skin color in the ground even when they obey orders.
Distrust means not just assuming you can take something at face value. It doesn't mean assuming that the face value is wrong. Distrust of authority is healthy. Riots are dangerous as fuck, so starting one when all you have is belief and no actual knowledge is a pretty shitty thing to do.
Like no one ever intentionally starts a riot. Save for those trying to make your side look worse, most of the shit is a heat of the moment decision. Herd mentality is an interesting and terrifying topic, but the short of it is a bunch of people acting together can get suuuuuper dangerous even when every individual member would never engage in a riot like activity. There is a reason you send someone to blend in and try to get the crowd to start doing something stupid as a means to justify action. There is a whole lot of social psychology research for why this works. It has been hashed out pretty well in this thread though I feel.
...so the rioting has nothing at all to do with whether the cops are perceived to be killing black people without justification? Because I'm pretty sure that's exactly why it happens.
"A riot is the language of the unheard." Try listening.
Funny, isn't it, that so many hold civilians to the standard of police, but police to a standard somewhere below a civilian? When blacks are approached by police, we are expected to be perfect- in our actions, in our statements, even in our appearance- or our murders are labeled justice. Meanwhile, a cop can jump at his own shadow and kill someone, and we're told it's okay because "they have a stressful job."
Curious how the legion of people who criticize how black people go about protesting shrug when asked if maybe- just maybe- police should take more care not to murder the people they've sworn to protect. I'd really like one of these fine folk to enlighten me about what is an acceptable form of protest, since we've eliminated marching in silence, sit ins, chanting, kneeling during the national anthem, and stating that our lives actually matter. Should we head down to Boston Harbor with some Lipton, or would that be considered thuggish destruction of property?
About 99% of that is incredibly presumptuous and incorrect as a description for me. Seriously, what the fuck? Step 1: stop assuming you know what people think and how they'll treat you. I never got an actual response to my question, so here's my logic: cops are perceived (correctly or incorrectly) to unjustly shoot black people in a given case -> increase in rioting.
Therefore
Reduction in incorrect perception of cops unjustly shooting black people -> decrease in rioting.
In plain language, riots happen because protesters see cops kill black folk without a good reason. If protesters assume that all shootings of black people are unjust, the amount of rioting goes up even though the number of unjustified shootings has not.
If the police/justice system/city councils keep giving protesters good reason to assume all shootings of black people are unjust, the amount of rioting goes up even though the number of unjustified shootings has not.
Note, none of this is happening in a vacuum here. There's a long history of police brutality towards black Americans. I've had relatives from other countries ask me what the hell is up in the US with cops shooting black people for no reason. This isn't a weirdly specific and persistent case of mass insanity here.
That's a stupid way to word things. The only "good reason" to assume all shootings of black people are unjust would be an inability to find a single case of a justified shooting of a black person. That's how math works. The only "good reason" to assume that a shooting is unjustified is a belief that unjustified shootings overwhelmingly outweigh justified shootings. Where's the threshold? Fifteen to one? Yes, the system is super fucked up, but does anyone here actually believe that there are fifteen times as many unjustified shootings as justified shootings?
Okay, well, I thought you were saying "all" in a loose rhetorical sense, and not in a strict sense, because ... well, that seemed pretty fucking absurd to me, that you might legitimately think that a single false positive might delegitimize a general presumption of positives being true. That's just... not how humans work, as per my admittedly anecdotal experience of them.
I'm really tired right now, both physically and just of having to refocus people in this thread time and time again, so I'm just going to bullet-point this:
You're not counting the right things if you are going to be counting. People don't protest the shootings of every black person, so the question you're asking is already flawed (and makes a pretty bad faith assumption too).
The various protests are over many different things, sometimes not even over shootings (Freddie Gray was not shot, for example).
The various protesters are many different people, who are differently motivated.
The protesters are motivated by much more than just whether the shooting itself was justified or not. This is an absurd reduction that some of us are engaging here in this thread, as though because one event precedes another, then obviously event #1 is the sole and only cause of event #2. Which isn't how history works.
Human psychology does not demand 100% reliability to form beliefs. If every time we meet, I punch you 99% of the time and pull my punch 1% of the time, you will still flinch when I cock my fist. If you're looking to establish a firm threshold, then okay, I guess you can engage in that pointless activity?
If you're going to try and find that threshold and count incidents, even ignoring all the above caveats, you'd still be counting the wrong thing, because people aren't affected by events they're not aware of.
Honestly, you guys seem like you're desperate to find some irrationality here to justify a dismissal of this movement, and that's just a completely backwards way to approach things. You can always find an irrationality if you just don't look hard enough; you should be trying your best to understand what's going on and why, and then if you fail, that's an interesting data point.
Personally, no, the Boston sovereign citizen shooting probably wasn't one to get outraged about. But I also completely understand why people got outraged about it immediately, because the immediate details were that it was mother with her child in her own home. Did it turn out to probably be a justified shooting? Yes. Does that make the outrage over it incomprehensible? No. Does that delegitimize the larger protest movement? Also no.
On the other hand, that North Miami shooting..., we're all completely agreed that that shooting was fucked up, right? That that officer most clearly and obviously royally-fucked-up in AT LEAST one way, right? Well, it's been 2 months, and he hasn't been disciplined in any way other than being placed on leave, and the investigation on the incident has gone dark. And I gotta wonder, maybe if blacks in Miami had risen up and rioted over that incident, maybe that's the actual goddamned price to admission for justice nowadays for black people who've been on the receiving end of police violence. Maybe the problem is that if that if the black community doesn't do anything, these incidents will continue happening over and over and be swept under the rug - justified and unjustified alike - and the only way to spur the justice system into doing something that even remotely resembles its duty is to do something and this is the only thing they can do.
I'm not getting into the other stuff at the moment, but yes the Miami shooting was super fucked and that guy needs to be brought up on charges.
it has been said multiple times in this thread, that when people who are marginalized feel that every other option available to them is being summarily ignored, that the only way to make people take notice is to start breaking shit, people will start breaking shit.
And you keep denying them that.
You can justify it any way you like, it will not help the cause. It doesn't matter if you think it's right, or just, or even simply understandable, it still will not help the cause.
You can romanticize it until you are blue in the face, but it will not help the cause.
Speaking of romanticization, one of the most celebrated moments in US history was people getting mad and breaking shit. Only that's okay because it was white people in the relatively distant past.
Maybe black people can protest in a way that won't get widely criticised
Like, say, not standing for the National Anthem
Nobody could object to that
Maybe they could peacefully march on Washington.
The last time they did that it led to one of the most powerful speeches in recorded history and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Ah, using MLK as a weapon to shame black people while conveniently ignoring that he wrote about you: "…I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention."
It's really disrespectful for you to use King's work against black people while ignoring his message
First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season.
it has been said multiple times in this thread, that when people who are marginalized feel that every other option available to them is being summarily ignored, that the only way to make people take notice is to start breaking shit, people will start breaking shit.
And you keep denying them that.
You can justify it any way you like, it will not help the cause. It doesn't matter if you think it's right, or just, or even simply understandable, it still will not help the cause.
You can romanticize it until you are blue in the face, but it will not help the cause.
If you don't give people access to working toilets, they're going to end up shitting on the floor.
Now, most people would look at this situation and say, "Hey, maybe if we give them access to working toilets, they wouldn't need to shit on the floor anymore!" You attempting to lecture them on how shitting on the floor smells bad and is unsanitary isn't helpful, because you're not telling them anything they don't already know, and you're not giving them options.
The social contract is a two-way street. We give our government our obedience, and the government tries it's best to protect us. If the government doesn't uphold it's end of the bargain, then the citizens are going to feel they have no need to uphold their end either.
it has been said multiple times in this thread, that when people who are marginalized feel that every other option available to them is being summarily ignored, that the only way to make people take notice is to start breaking shit, people will start breaking shit.
And you keep denying them that.
You can justify it any way you like, it will not help the cause. It doesn't matter if you think it's right, or just, or even simply understandable, it still will not help the cause.
You can romanticize it until you are blue in the face, but it will not help the cause.
Speaking of romanticization, one of the most celebrated moments in US history was people getting mad and breaking shit. Only that's okay because it was white people in the relatively distant past.
For a more recent example: Look at how the right wing defended the Cliven Bundy clan for outright theft and destruction of federal property.
it has been said multiple times in this thread, that when people who are marginalized feel that every other option available to them is being summarily ignored, that the only way to make people take notice is to start breaking shit, people will start breaking shit.
And you keep denying them that.
You can justify it any way you like, it will not help the cause. It doesn't matter if you think it's right, or just, or even simply understandable, it still will not help the cause.
You can romanticize it until you are blue in the face, but it will not help the cause.
Speaking of romanticization, one of the most celebrated moments in US history was people getting mad and breaking shit. Only that's okay because it was white people in the relatively distant past.
For a more recent example: Look at how the right wing defended the Cliven Bundy clan for outright theft and destruction of federal property.
Support which included right wing pundits, and elected Republicans.
+11
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season.
Maybe black people can protest in a way that won't get widely criticised
Like, say, not standing for the National Anthem
Nobody could object to that
Maybe they could peacefully march on Washington.
The last time they did that it led to one of the most powerful speeches in recorded history and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Ah, using MLK as a weapon to shame black people while conveniently ignoring that he wrote about you: "…I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention."
It's really disrespectful for you to use King's work against black people while ignoring his message
Given the line about condemning riots vigorously, I don't think his problem with "can't agree with your methods of direct action" was aimed there.
First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season.
Maybe black people can protest in a way that won't get widely criticised
Like, say, not standing for the National Anthem
Nobody could object to that
Maybe they could peacefully march on Washington.
The last time they did that it led to one of the most powerful speeches in recorded history and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Ah, using MLK as a weapon to shame black people while conveniently ignoring that he wrote about you: "…I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention."
It's really disrespectful for you to use King's work against black people while ignoring his message
Given the line about condemning riots vigorously, I don't think his problem with "can't agree with your methods of direct action" was aimed there.
He did see them as a natural consequence, and sympathized with the rioters who did it.
+10
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season.
Maybe black people can protest in a way that won't get widely criticised
Like, say, not standing for the National Anthem
Nobody could object to that
Maybe they could peacefully march on Washington.
The last time they did that it led to one of the most powerful speeches in recorded history and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Ah, using MLK as a weapon to shame black people while conveniently ignoring that he wrote about you: "…I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention."
It's really disrespectful for you to use King's work against black people while ignoring his message
Given the line about condemning riots vigorously, I don't think his problem with "can't agree with your methods of direct action" was aimed there.
He did see them as a natural consequence, and sympathized with the rioters who did it.
My point is that criticizing Smokestacks for quoting MLK while condemning riots in the same breath is dumb. MLK expressed sympathy for rioters' frustration, but he also pretty clearly said that they're not the thing to do.
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
it has been said multiple times in this thread, that when people who are marginalized feel that every other option available to them is being summarily ignored, that the only way to make people take notice is to start breaking shit, people will start breaking shit.
And you keep denying them that.
You can justify it any way you like, it will not help the cause. It doesn't matter if you think it's right, or just, or even simply understandable, it still will not help the cause.
You can romanticize it until you are blue in the face, but it will not help the cause.
Speaking of romanticization, one of the most celebrated moments in US history was people getting mad and breaking shit. Only that's okay because it was white people in the relatively distant past.
For a more recent example: Look at how the right wing defended the Cliven Bundy clan for outright theft and destruction of federal property.
First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season.
Maybe black people can protest in a way that won't get widely criticised
Like, say, not standing for the National Anthem
Nobody could object to that
Maybe they could peacefully march on Washington.
The last time they did that it led to one of the most powerful speeches in recorded history and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Ah, using MLK as a weapon to shame black people while conveniently ignoring that he wrote about you: "…I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention."
It's really disrespectful for you to use King's work against black people while ignoring his message
Given the line about condemning riots vigorously, I don't think his problem with "can't agree with your methods of direct action" was aimed there.
He did see them as a natural consequence, and sympathized with the rioters who did it.
My point is that criticizing Smokestacks for quoting MLK while condemning riots in the same breath is dumb. MLK expressed sympathy for rioters' frustration, but he also pretty clearly said that they're not the thing to do.
Isnt that exactly what Smokestacks is doing?
Thats how i read it anyway.
Also, who is talking about how rioters feel about bodycameras? I'm talking about how this thread feels about bodycameras, which seems to be a pretty unanimous thumbs up regardless of how they feel about police/BLM, which is why it's a safe argument, so why do you keep retreating to it?
So you want to criticize the rioters for their beliefs, but you don't want to discuss what those beliefs actually are because apparently their beliefs are off topic when other people wish to discuss them.
You wonder why people don't trust the cops. The fact that cops are opposed to a solution that we have damned near unanimous consensus on in this thread is a good reason why people don't trust them.
What are you even talking about?
Rioting won't help the situation is the core ideal I'm pushing here, it has nothing to do with the rioter's "beliefs". Do you think that the rioters believe that rioting is going to somehow help race relations? I thought they were just reflexively "lashing out"?
When did I ever "wonder why people don't trust the cops"? Now you're just pulling things out of thin air.
it has been said multiple times in this thread, that when people who are marginalized feel that every other option available to them is being summarily ignored, that the only way to make people take notice is to start breaking shit, people will start breaking shit.
And you keep denying them that.
Fuck the rioters, focus on the police and their abuse of power.
I say this as a Seattlite where we have given up on having safe protests and generally accept anarchists infecting the event.
I mean fuck, they bullied school children out of their protests tried to roll a dumpster during another.
it has been said multiple times in this thread, that when people who are marginalized feel that every other option available to them is being summarily ignored, that the only way to make people take notice is to start breaking shit, people will start breaking shit.
And you keep denying them that.
You can justify it any way you like, it will not help the cause. It doesn't matter if you think it's right, or just, or even simply understandable, it still will not help the cause.
You can romanticize it until you are blue in the face, but it will not help the cause.
Speaking of romanticization, one of the most celebrated moments in US history was people getting mad and breaking shit. Only that's okay because it was white people in the relatively distant past.
For a more recent example: Look at how the right wing defended the Cliven Bundy clan for outright theft and destruction of federal property.
You know, a few weeks ago this thread was highjacked by someone arguing that it was unreasonable for people to be wary of a cop with Nazi tattoos, and now by people who spent pages and pages attacking those dastardly rioters while having precious little to say about government agents summarily executing citizens with virtual impunity.
It's almost like they're more concerned with silencing the complainers than what they're complaining about.
I have to say, though, the past day or so has been fantastic for my bingo card. We've had the classic first move, "they're just lying/playing the race card," the follow-up of "yes, it's bad, but it's just not that big a deal." Multiple people have even used their whitewashed, Hallmark version of King to attack modern activists, as if they're not the same people who criticized King as asking for too much too fast. But, what can do you? After all, if you call them out, they'll just accuse you of supporting crime. Just like people accused King fifty years ago.
Back to the actual topic of this thread, which is unjustified police shootings that overwhelming feature brown people as their victims, I noticed something amazing the other day.
They were talking about it on ESPN.
Now, Kaepernick and those he inspired have been the news for weeks, but it was usually to talk about his method of protest rather than the substance of it. But there's been a sea change. People who last week wouldn't have touched police violence with a ten foot pole are now talking about the issue. Getting people to stop ignoring the problem is always the first hurdle for an activist movement. Even in this thread, people have started attacking the protestors for being less than perfect because they can no longer credibly claim that the problem doesn't exist.
Between that and the manslaughter charge in Tulsa, I haven't been this hopeful about muzzling police since Slagar was arrested.
That was a fairly unprecedented situation. Cops didn't "storm the gates" at Malheur because they were trying to prevent Waco 2.0 with dozens of people (occupants and cops) being killed on live television.
Instead they let the group hem and haw as loud as they liked, but they waited them out. In the end, everyone was taken peacefully except Lavoy Finicum (the Tarp Warrior), who was shot by state police after he tried to draw on them.
It wasn't the most macho/cowboy solution, but it was the smart solution. Part of me wonders if they let the final four remain there so long because their videos showing them huddling around in the cold mud with nothing to eat were a perfect warning to any militia minded types who were thinking of trying something similar in the future.
Better to let the public see them as pathetic people in a pathetic situation than have them end up martyrs going out in a blaze of glory against "the man".
You know, a few weeks ago this thread was highjacked by someone arguing that it was unreasonable for people to be wary of a cop with Nazi tattoos, and now by people who spent pages and pages attacking those dastardly rioters while having precious little to say about government agents summarily executing citizens with virtual impunity.
It's almost like they're more concerned with silencing the complainers than what they're complaining about.
I have to say, though, the past day or so has been fantastic for my bingo card. We've had the classic first move, "they're just lying/playing the race card," the follow-up of "yes, it's bad, but it's just not that big a deal." Multiple people have even used their whitewashed, Hallmark version of King to attack modern activists, as if they're not the same people who criticized King as asking for too much too fast. But, what can do you? After all, if you call them out, they'll just accuse you of supporting crime. Just like people accused King fifty years ago.
Back to the actual topic of this thread, which is unjustified police shootings that overwhelming feature brown people as their victims, I noticed something amazing the other day.
They were talking about it on ESPN.
Now, Kaepernick and those he inspired have been the news for weeks, but it was usually to talk about his method of protest rather than the substance of it. But there's been a sea change. People who last week wouldn't have touched police violence with a ten foot pole are now talking about the issue. Getting people to stop ignoring the problem is always the first hurdle for an activist movement. Even in this thread, people have started attacking the protestors for being less than perfect because they can no longer credibly claim that the problem doesn't exist.
Between that and the manslaughter charge in Tulsa, I haven't been this hopeful about muzzling police since Slagar was arrested.
“White cops are killing too many black, unarmed men, and getting away with it, without penalty. Without a check, without a balance. That is getting addressed. Let’s get back to Trent Dilfer. That was typical old-school quarterback mentality that you just spoke of. That was so typical. Dispassionate. Disconnected to the point of being clueless. Sort of ex-white-quarterback mentality. This is how you do it. You should be thankful and you should be honored to be in the NFL quarterback fraternity. So if you’re a starter, you can speak out a little more.
But if you’re a backup, to use your [Sharpe’s] line again, and it’s my favorite line, you are to be seen and not heard. You are to prepare for the game and be ready to play in case of. And you are to remain in the shadows so as not to distract or disturb or wreck your team unity. … Obviously, I’m not black. But this is one thing I do know after years and years of working with a lot of black players and black commentators on many networks: That if you go to the place of you’re telling a black man, or a black woman, that ‘You should know your place and stay in it,’ when you get to there, them’s fighting words. That smacks of plantation mentality. You cannot go there—and he went there. Because no matter what you’re trying to say in the football context, we’re not in the football context any more. We have risen above it to an issue that is far more important than any football game.”
You know, a few weeks ago this thread was highjacked by someone arguing that it was unreasonable for people to be wary of a cop with Nazi tattoos, and now by people who spent pages and pages attacking those dastardly rioters while having precious little to say about government agents summarily executing citizens with virtual impunity.
It's almost like they're more concerned with silencing the complainers than what they're complaining about.
I have to say, though, the past day or so has been fantastic for my bingo card. We've had the classic first move, "they're just lying/playing the race card," the follow-up of "yes, it's bad, but it's just not that big a deal." Multiple people have even used their whitewashed, Hallmark version of King to attack modern activists, as if they're not the same people who criticized King as asking for too much too fast. But, what can do you? After all, if you call them out, they'll just accuse you of supporting crime. Just like people accused King fifty years ago.
Back to the actual topic of this thread, which is unjustified police shootings that overwhelming feature brown people as their victims, I noticed something amazing the other day.
They were talking about it on ESPN.
Now, Kaepernick and those he inspired have been the news for weeks, but it was usually to talk about his method of protest rather than the substance of it. But there's been a sea change. People who last week wouldn't have touched police violence with a ten foot pole are now talking about the issue. Getting people to stop ignoring the problem is always the first hurdle for an activist movement. Even in this thread, people have started attacking the protestors for being less than perfect because they can no longer credibly claim that the problem doesn't exist.
Between that and the manslaughter charge in Tulsa, I haven't been this hopeful about muzzling police since Slagar was arrested.
Here's your easy solution for all of that.
Fuck the rioters they are adults and made their choices.
Now lets talk about the police officer who made the choice to open fire on a citizen. Lets talk about the lack of evidence and transparency involving the investigation. Lets address the fact that the Charlotte police chief is unaware of the fact that his department lacks credibility and unaware of the fact that holding back information validates accusation of racism. Lets address the fact that law enforcement in this country has become so insular and trigger happy with the public in general, that it is starting to no longer be an issue about race, but about multiple instances corruption that does target one race in particular a whole lot more, but in general fails in its duties overall.
I think part of the problem is that police are trained to deescalate a situation only when convenient and not as a primary goal. Meanwhile, police culture means that violence is nearly always seen as more convenient than not.
When you take into account how Malheur, Dylan Roof, and the recent Chelsea bombing suspect ended either without violence or a minimum of it, things get very creepy. Compared to general police response to average criminals and protests of any kind, it seems like police only care about brining suspects in alive when they think they're important. That speaks volumes about their mentality to the people they've sworn to protect.
Also, the "good cops" defense really bothers me. It's like saying that the existence of not-corrupt police cancel out the damage caused by corrupt ones, or that we should all wait patiently for the good ones to solve all the systemic and institutional problems for us.
it has been said multiple times in this thread, that when people who are marginalized feel that every other option available to them is being summarily ignored, that the only way to make people take notice is to start breaking shit, people will start breaking shit.
And you keep denying them that.
You can justify it any way you like, it will not help the cause. It doesn't matter if you think it's right, or just, or even simply understandable, it still will not help the cause.
You can romanticize it until you are blue in the face, but it will not help the cause.
Maybe black people can protest in a way that won't get widely criticised
Like, say, not standing for the National Anthem
Nobody could object to that
Maybe they could protest by voting out of office the people in charge of the police.
it has been said multiple times in this thread, that when people who are marginalized feel that every other option available to them is being summarily ignored, that the only way to make people take notice is to start breaking shit, people will start breaking shit.
And you keep denying them that.
You can justify it any way you like, it will not help the cause. It doesn't matter if you think it's right, or just, or even simply understandable, it still will not help the cause.
You can romanticize it until you are blue in the face, but it will not help the cause.
Maybe black people can protest in a way that won't get widely criticised
Like, say, not standing for the National Anthem
Nobody could object to that
Maybe they could protest by voting out of office the people in charge of the police.
You SHOULD know that a vote isnt a protest, because there isnt a comments field to explain why you voted the way you did, so you cannot make it clear what situation influenced your vote.
Posts
Okay, well, I thought you were saying "all" in a loose rhetorical sense, and not in a strict sense, because ... well, that seemed pretty fucking absurd to me, that you might legitimately think that a single false positive might delegitimize a general presumption of positives being true. That's just... not how humans work, as per my admittedly anecdotal experience of them.
I'm really tired right now, both physically and just of having to refocus people in this thread time and time again, so I'm just going to bullet-point this:
Honestly, you guys seem like you're desperate to find some irrationality here to justify a dismissal of this movement, and that's just a completely backwards way to approach things. You can always find an irrationality if you just don't look hard enough; you should be trying your best to understand what's going on and why, and then if you fail, that's an interesting data point.
Personally, no, the Boston sovereign citizen shooting probably wasn't one to get outraged about. But I also completely understand why people got outraged about it immediately, because the immediate details were that it was mother with her child in her own home. Did it turn out to probably be a justified shooting? Yes. Does that make the outrage over it incomprehensible? No. Does that delegitimize the larger protest movement? Also no.
On the other hand, that North Miami shooting..., we're all completely agreed that that shooting was fucked up, right? That that officer most clearly and obviously royally-fucked-up in AT LEAST one way, right? Well, it's been 2 months, and he hasn't been disciplined in any way other than being placed on leave, and the investigation on the incident has gone dark. And I gotta wonder, maybe if blacks in Miami had risen up and rioted over that incident, maybe that's the actual goddamned price to admission for justice nowadays for black people who've been on the receiving end of police violence. Maybe the problem is that if that if the black community doesn't do anything, these incidents will continue happening over and over and be swept under the rug - justified and unjustified alike - and the only way to spur the justice system into doing something that even remotely resembles its duty is to do something and this is the only thing they can do.
Are you referring to this?
Okay, let's look into the Jamar Clark case, shall we?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jamar_Clark
Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists and supporters protested for days outside the police precinct protesting against information hiding, demanding for release of police dashcam and bodycam videos containing material evidence that can settle the truth of police accounts of the incident.
Demanding that the police be more forthcoming and transparent with their is not "automatic assumption of guilt." It's basic accountability.
On the one hand, you have a situation where the police assume that random unarmed black people are animals who need to be killed in cold blood.
On the other hand, you have a group of protestors insisting that we should demand that police officers be more transparent so we can verify their claims rather than simply accepting them at face value.
These two things are not equivalent.
The other big difference is how the assumption is used. Even if some people assume that all cops are bad, the US Justice system isn't using that to justify the murder of innocent police officers. OTOH, when cops assume that all black people are animals, it's so they can get off from any form of punishment.
Can you point to a single example where a black person got away with killing an unarmed police officer simply because of his assumption that police officers in general are scary? Because police officers are getting away with that on a near daily basis.
Really? Everyone already agrees with the use of body cams on police officers?
Because that's going to be huge news to all the police departments that have rejected them.
I was referring to everyone in this thread. Again, you know this, because you are an adult that can pick up on context clues. Why do you keep intentionally misrepresenting the posts you are quoting?
Unless you can find someone in the thread who disagrees with the concept of more widespread bodycams I guess. I don't remember reading any posts from anyone who thinks bodycameras are a bad thing, regardless of how they feel about the BLM movement.
You're blaming rioters for not having real solution, but you're avoiding discussion on what the real solutions actually are and who's getting in the way.
The rioters aren't the ones preventing body cams from happening. If anything, body cams works against the rioters, because it mean the rioters will be held more accountable for their own actions.
Also, who is talking about how rioters feel about bodycameras? I'm talking about how this thread feels about bodycameras, which seems to be a pretty unanimous thumbs up regardless of how they feel about police/BLM, which is why it's a safe argument, so why do you keep retreating to it?
So you want to criticize the rioters for their beliefs, but you don't want to discuss what those beliefs actually are because apparently their beliefs are off topic when other people wish to discuss them.
You wonder why people don't trust the cops. The fact that cops are opposed to a solution that we have damned near unanimous consensus on in this thread is a good reason why people don't trust them.
What are you even talking about?
Rioting won't help the situation is the core ideal I'm pushing here, it has nothing to do with the rioter's "beliefs". Do you think that the rioters believe that rioting is going to somehow help race relations? I thought they were just reflexively "lashing out"?
When did I ever "wonder why people don't trust the cops"? Now you're just pulling things out of thin air.
I haven't even heard a justification for it. Have they not even bothered to provide a reason?
I thought I also read that North Carolina has passed a law (effective Oct. 1) that basically forbids the release of dashcam/bodycam video without a court order? What the hell?
Regardless of whether or not there was a gun in his hand, if the video doesn't capture it explicitely they might be worried about its release being inciteful. Alternately they might think it in poor taste to publically release a video where a man is shot to death. The family will be able to see the video though.
Ideally the footage would be released simply to set a precedent that officer involved shootings will be met with 100% transparency by default, barring circumstances (the family does not want the video released, etc). That's not the direction they are headed though.
it has been said multiple times in this thread, that when people who are marginalized feel that every other option available to them is being summarily ignored, that the only way to make people take notice is to start breaking shit, people will start breaking shit.
And you keep denying them that.
Yeah, earlier in the thread. Not that it will impact this case at the rate things are going. The Charlotte chief seems the sort to 'lose' the footage, what with his 'Transparency is in the eye of the beholder' line.
RE: Rioting; It falls into the category of, "That don't make it right, but I can understand."
Well, whether or not the video is inflammatory, they've already got people rioting in the streets.
Unless the family has expressly forbidden them from releasing the video, I would think the loss of transparency should outweigh any concerns about good taste.
You can justify it any way you like, it will not help the cause. It doesn't matter if you think it's right, or just, or even simply understandable, it still will not help the cause.
You can romanticize it until you are blue in the face, but it will not help the cause.
Maybe black people can protest in a way that won't get widely criticised
Like, say, not standing for the National Anthem
Nobody could object to that
Maybe they could peacefully march on Washington.
The last time they did that it led to one of the most powerful speeches in recorded history and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
1) The movement hasn't got an MLK Jr. to do that which I'm aware of, 2) it's not like the police weren't going to pitch a fit even if they did that (look how they're reacted to Colin Kaepernick sitting out a national anthem) and 3) MLK Jr's peaceful protests got broken up violently by police in the past.
Or that a mix of the two phenomena was what forced their hand.
Speaking of romanticization, one of the most celebrated moments in US history was people getting mad and breaking shit. Only that's okay because it was white people in the relatively distant past.
I'm not getting into the other stuff at the moment, but yes the Miami shooting was super fucked and that guy needs to be brought up on charges.
Nah, the Tea Party was a dick move.
Ah, using MLK as a weapon to shame black people while conveniently ignoring that he wrote about you: "…I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention."
It's really disrespectful for you to use King's work against black people while ignoring his message
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
If you don't give people access to working toilets, they're going to end up shitting on the floor.
Now, most people would look at this situation and say, "Hey, maybe if we give them access to working toilets, they wouldn't need to shit on the floor anymore!" You attempting to lecture them on how shitting on the floor smells bad and is unsanitary isn't helpful, because you're not telling them anything they don't already know, and you're not giving them options.
The social contract is a two-way street. We give our government our obedience, and the government tries it's best to protect us. If the government doesn't uphold it's end of the bargain, then the citizens are going to feel they have no need to uphold their end either.
For a more recent example: Look at how the right wing defended the Cliven Bundy clan for outright theft and destruction of federal property.
Support which included right wing pundits, and elected Republicans.
Given the line about condemning riots vigorously, I don't think his problem with "can't agree with your methods of direct action" was aimed there.
He did see them as a natural consequence, and sympathized with the rioters who did it.
My point is that criticizing Smokestacks for quoting MLK while condemning riots in the same breath is dumb. MLK expressed sympathy for rioters' frustration, but he also pretty clearly said that they're not the thing to do.
Also, pointing firearms directly at police.
They're still alive though, so....
I think without riots (or at least the threat of them), the civil rights movement would not have advanced to where it is today.
Isnt that exactly what Smokestacks is doing?
Thats how i read it anyway.
Fuck the rioters, focus on the police and their abuse of power.
I say this as a Seattlite where we have given up on having safe protests and generally accept anarchists infecting the event.
I mean fuck, they bullied school children out of their protests tried to roll a dumpster during another.
Except for that one guy.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
It's almost like they're more concerned with silencing the complainers than what they're complaining about.
I have to say, though, the past day or so has been fantastic for my bingo card. We've had the classic first move, "they're just lying/playing the race card," the follow-up of "yes, it's bad, but it's just not that big a deal." Multiple people have even used their whitewashed, Hallmark version of King to attack modern activists, as if they're not the same people who criticized King as asking for too much too fast. But, what can do you? After all, if you call them out, they'll just accuse you of supporting crime. Just like people accused King fifty years ago.
Back to the actual topic of this thread, which is unjustified police shootings that overwhelming feature brown people as their victims, I noticed something amazing the other day.
They were talking about it on ESPN.
Now, Kaepernick and those he inspired have been the news for weeks, but it was usually to talk about his method of protest rather than the substance of it. But there's been a sea change. People who last week wouldn't have touched police violence with a ten foot pole are now talking about the issue. Getting people to stop ignoring the problem is always the first hurdle for an activist movement. Even in this thread, people have started attacking the protestors for being less than perfect because they can no longer credibly claim that the problem doesn't exist.
Between that and the manslaughter charge in Tulsa, I haven't been this hopeful about muzzling police since Slagar was arrested.
That was a fairly unprecedented situation. Cops didn't "storm the gates" at Malheur because they were trying to prevent Waco 2.0 with dozens of people (occupants and cops) being killed on live television.
Instead they let the group hem and haw as loud as they liked, but they waited them out. In the end, everyone was taken peacefully except Lavoy Finicum (the Tarp Warrior), who was shot by state police after he tried to draw on them.
It wasn't the most macho/cowboy solution, but it was the smart solution. Part of me wonders if they let the final four remain there so long because their videos showing them huddling around in the cold mud with nothing to eat were a perfect warning to any militia minded types who were thinking of trying something similar in the future.
Better to let the public see them as pathetic people in a pathetic situation than have them end up martyrs going out in a blaze of glory against "the man".
I loved Skip Bayless' critique
Here's your easy solution for all of that.
Fuck the rioters they are adults and made their choices.
Now lets talk about the police officer who made the choice to open fire on a citizen. Lets talk about the lack of evidence and transparency involving the investigation. Lets address the fact that the Charlotte police chief is unaware of the fact that his department lacks credibility and unaware of the fact that holding back information validates accusation of racism. Lets address the fact that law enforcement in this country has become so insular and trigger happy with the public in general, that it is starting to no longer be an issue about race, but about multiple instances corruption that does target one race in particular a whole lot more, but in general fails in its duties overall.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
When you take into account how Malheur, Dylan Roof, and the recent Chelsea bombing suspect ended either without violence or a minimum of it, things get very creepy. Compared to general police response to average criminals and protests of any kind, it seems like police only care about brining suspects in alive when they think they're important. That speaks volumes about their mentality to the people they've sworn to protect.
Also, the "good cops" defense really bothers me. It's like saying that the existence of not-corrupt police cancel out the damage caused by corrupt ones, or that we should all wait patiently for the good ones to solve all the systemic and institutional problems for us.
Maybe they could protest by voting out of office the people in charge of the police.
You SHOULD know that a vote isnt a protest, because there isnt a comments field to explain why you voted the way you did, so you cannot make it clear what situation influenced your vote.
MWO: Adamski