I know specifically to what you refer, and one of the major problems Ferguson had is that its majority population of minorities was severely under-represented in local elected office.
But they are not a minority in ferguson. They were very much treated like one. Not to say minorities should be treated unfairly anywhere here either.
A minority doesn't become a majority just because one small town has a lot of them.
The term is "majority-minority district/city/whatever".
They don't stop being minorities, or referred to as such, because there is technically a place where they outnumber white people. There's nothing to be gained from a conversation about insistent terminology to the contrary.
As I said, i'm fully aware that African Americans and other ethnic groups are minorities in the united states. And I welcome progress that changes the political class in Ferguson to better reflect the population proportions in that town. African americans in ferguson are a majority population, but they have not been represented as such. It will probably be another year or two before that fully changes and we see 2/3rds of the political class in ferguson be of a minority group.
In Ferguson specifically, a minority of people were inflicting pain on a majority.
It's not unique to Ferguson, and it's often WORSE in plurality municipalities. Suppose you've got a city that's 20% Hispanic, 25% black, and 50% white. Then take a wild guess what 100% of your local elected officials are going to look like.
It's not unique to Ferguson, and it's often WORSE in plurality municipalities. Suppose you've got a city that's 20% Hispanic, 25% black, and 50% white. Then take a wild guess what 100% of your local elected officials are going to look like.
It's not unique to Ferguson, and it's often WORSE in plurality municipalities. Suppose you've got a city that's 20% Hispanic, 25% black, and 50% white. Then take a wild guess what 100% of your local elected officials are going to look like.
Jesus
It's actually a big issue I a lot of areas, basically reverse gerrymandering - toss everything in open general elections, and let the higher voting rates of the ~45-55% white population utterly suppress the minority vote. It's something the ACLU is specifically targeting now in smaller and mid sized municipalities. I know of at least one in a town around here that's 40% Hispanic and has never in its history had a Hispanic elected official, for example.
JihadJesus on
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
It's not unique to Ferguson, and it's often WORSE in plurality municipalities. Suppose you've got a city that's 20% Hispanic, 25% black, and 50% white. Then take a wild guess what 100% of your local elected officials are going to look like.
Jesus
It's actually a big issue I a lot of areas, basically reverse gerrymandering - toss everything in open general elections, and let the higher voting rates of the ~45-55% white population utterly suppress the minority vote. It's something the ACLU is specifically targeting now in smaller and mid sized municipalities. I know of at least one in a town around here that's 40% Hispanic and has never in its history had a Hispanic elected official, for example.
How exactly would they be targeting that? Even with everyone at full voter turnout, 55% is still a majority, albeit by 6%. I'm thinking "switching to proportional representation" but I'm not sure if it's allowed to sue a city/county expressly to change its system of government, since that'd be a thing done by referendum.
It's not unique to Ferguson, and it's often WORSE in plurality municipalities. Suppose you've got a city that's 20% Hispanic, 25% black, and 50% white. Then take a wild guess what 100% of your local elected officials are going to look like.
Jesus
It's actually a big issue I a lot of areas, basically reverse gerrymandering - toss everything in open general elections, and let the higher voting rates of the ~45-55% white population utterly suppress the minority vote. It's something the ACLU is specifically targeting now in smaller and mid sized municipalities. I know of at least one in a town around here that's 40% Hispanic and has never in its history had a Hispanic elected official, for example.
How exactly would they be targeting that? Even with everyone at full voter turnout, 55% is still a majority, albeit by 6%. I'm thinking "switching to proportional representation" but I'm not sure if it's allowed to sue a city/county expressly to change its system of government, since that'd be a thing done by referendum.
Well, one way is applied use of gerrymandering - instead of just creating districts based on population, you look at demographic makeup as well, creating districts that are majority-minority.
Yeah, I was looking for a thread about it but I couldn't remember if there was a moratorium on them or not and in any case I certainly didn't feel qualified to make a thread about it.
Is the black bar a percentage of a percentage, or a percentage of deaths
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Maybe we should talk about how it doesn't seem to make a damn difference if you're carrying legally or not?
Well technically he didnt follow concealed carry rules if he did reach for his license. You are taught to never do that. And to instead, after telling the police that you are carrying, to ask to get out and let them take your gun.
Edit: This does not mean he should have been shot of course.
Maybe we should talk about how it doesn't seem to make a damn difference if you're carrying legally or not?
Well technically he didnt follow concealed carry rules if he did reach for his license. You are taught to never do that. And to instead, after telling the police that you are carrying, to ask to get out and let them take your gun.
Edit: This does not mean he should have been shot of course.
Might want to read up on the case - according to the eyewitness, the cop shot Castile immediately after he said that he was carrying a firearm. He didn't get to ask to get out of the car and let the cop take his gun; he had already been shot four times.
Maybe we should talk about how it doesn't seem to make a damn difference if you're carrying legally or not?
Well technically he didnt follow concealed carry rules if he did reach for his license. You are taught to never do that. And to instead, after telling the police that you are carrying, to ask to get out and let them take your gun.
Edit: This does not mean he should have been shot of course.
Might want to read up on the case - according to the eyewitness, the cop shot Castile immediately after he said that he was carrying a firearm. He didn't get to ask to get out of the car and let the cop take his gun; he had already been shot four times.
Technically, as far as I understand it:
1. Castille announces he has a gun and a conceal carry permit.
2. Cop asks for license.
3. Castille goes for the license.
4. "He's coming right for us!" Cop shoots him four times.
The cop seemed confused. Like he didn't register that Castille was armed and just asked for "license & registration" like he normally does, then what Castille had said said kicked in and he immediately went into hostile shooter mode seeing him going for his pocket.
Castile seems like a pretty obvious bad shooting right away. It's still possible it wasn't - if you had say only the footage from the sovereign citizens viewpoint after whatshisface in Oregon had already been shot, it would've been easy to assume that he had been shot for no reason - but it seems very unlikely. The officer just doesn't really seems like he knows what he's doing.
Sterling seems much more justifiable. 2 cops are called with a description of an armed suspect, they confront the suspect. During a struggle with the suspect (which we still don't know much about the leadup to) the suspect goes for his gun despite being warned that he'd be shot if he does so. It's not just one officer who treats it as an immediate threat either, both pull their guns during the struggle and he's actually shot by the one further away from the camera. That both officers respond the same way is an indication to me that they were both seeing the same thing and following their training. All he'd need to do is get his hand into his pocket to shoot one of them, waiting until he does so is not a reasonable burden for police.
Sterling's death is ugly, and possibly not particularly great police work, but not a bad shoot. It kind of reminds me of the shooting in Arizona at a Walmart about half a year ago when a big crazy family tried to fight an officer for his gun and one of them eventually got shot at similarly close range. Castile, on the other hand, seems like a big fuckup, like the Joseph Schultz shooting by the FBI years ago.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Posts
A minority doesn't become a majority just because one small town has a lot of them.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
They don't stop being minorities, or referred to as such, because there is technically a place where they outnumber white people. There's nothing to be gained from a conversation about insistent terminology to the contrary.
As I said, i'm fully aware that African Americans and other ethnic groups are minorities in the united states. And I welcome progress that changes the political class in Ferguson to better reflect the population proportions in that town. African americans in ferguson are a majority population, but they have not been represented as such. It will probably be another year or two before that fully changes and we see 2/3rds of the political class in ferguson be of a minority group.
In Ferguson specifically, a minority of people were inflicting pain on a majority.
Jesus
How exactly would they be targeting that? Even with everyone at full voter turnout, 55% is still a majority, albeit by 6%. I'm thinking "switching to proportional representation" but I'm not sure if it's allowed to sue a city/county expressly to change its system of government, since that'd be a thing done by referendum.
Well, one way is applied use of gerrymandering - instead of just creating districts based on population, you look at demographic makeup as well, creating districts that are majority-minority.
Hmm, cops execute two black men in two days? Seems familiar.
Oh right, because it happened well before Fergusson and never stopped afterward.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Speaks for itself.
But see, that chart isn't actually applicable here.
Because these two men were lawfully carrying guns.
Which were used as an excuse in one of the cases.
Surprisingly, it looks very similar.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I believe he was being facetious.
Most convicted felons can't own guns.
(This is not to say he deserved to be shot)
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Not been following Sterling, but Phil Castillo was definitely carrying lawfully.
Philando Castille reportedly had a concealed carry permit.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Well technically he didnt follow concealed carry rules if he did reach for his license. You are taught to never do that. And to instead, after telling the police that you are carrying, to ask to get out and let them take your gun.
Edit: This does not mean he should have been shot of course.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Technically, as far as I understand it:
1. Castille announces he has a gun and a conceal carry permit.
2. Cop asks for license.
3. Castille goes for the license.
4. "He's coming right for us!" Cop shoots him four times.
The cop seemed confused. Like he didn't register that Castille was armed and just asked for "license & registration" like he normally does, then what Castille had said said kicked in and he immediately went into hostile shooter mode seeing him going for his pocket.
here is the newer one https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/205978/do-black-lives-matter-the-answer-may-surprise-you#latest
Sterling seems much more justifiable. 2 cops are called with a description of an armed suspect, they confront the suspect. During a struggle with the suspect (which we still don't know much about the leadup to) the suspect goes for his gun despite being warned that he'd be shot if he does so. It's not just one officer who treats it as an immediate threat either, both pull their guns during the struggle and he's actually shot by the one further away from the camera. That both officers respond the same way is an indication to me that they were both seeing the same thing and following their training. All he'd need to do is get his hand into his pocket to shoot one of them, waiting until he does so is not a reasonable burden for police.
Sterling's death is ugly, and possibly not particularly great police work, but not a bad shoot. It kind of reminds me of the shooting in Arizona at a Walmart about half a year ago when a big crazy family tried to fight an officer for his gun and one of them eventually got shot at similarly close range. Castile, on the other hand, seems like a big fuckup, like the Joseph Schultz shooting by the FBI years ago.