National Guard called into Minneapolis

[Silvanus]

A veteran isn't something you're born as, so no. If it were about some sort of inherent characteristic, like skin color, or sex/gender, then it would be.

Why is something "divisive and exclusionary" if it focuses exclusively on an issue that affects people with an inherent characteristic, but not if it focuses exclusively on an issue that affects people with a acquired characteristic?

As opposed to, what, ending past slavery? Future slavery?

As opposed to other issues.

Police brutality in its entirety and racial discrimination in the police force are distinct issues.

A child is something that a person is for a temporary period of time, and is something that everyone is or used to be, so no.
If it were something like "Black children", then yeah.

Again, why does "divisive and exclusionary" not apply if it focuses exclusively on "something that a person is for a temporary period of time, and is something that everyone is or used to be"?

You're adding more caveats and qualifications every step of the way.

I wonder, though, could a charity be sued for discrimination if it's something like "women's only" or "black children only"?

No. Literally hundreds of thousands of charities focus exclusively on issues affecting specific people. There are countless women's charities, such as refuges or domestic abuse charities.

 

[lil devils x]

Why is something "divisive and exclusionary" if it focuses exclusively on an issue that affects people with an inherent characteristic, but not if it focuses exclusively on an issue that affects people with a acquired characteristic?



As opposed to other issues.

Police brutality in its entirety and racial discrimination in the police force are distinct issues.



Again, why does "divisive and exclusionary" not apply if it focuses exclusively on "something that a person is for a temporary period of time, and is something that everyone is or used to be"?

You're adding more caveats and qualifications every step of the way.



No. Literally hundreds of thousands of charities focus exclusively on issues affecting specific people. There are countless women's charities, such as refuges or domestic abuse charities.

Next thing you know, they will be attacking the " National cancer society" for being exclusionary due to them not including all of those without cancer...
The entire " All lives matter" defense amounts to insincere trolling.

 

[lil devils x]

Convincing people of that isn't what needs to happen. Making that true is what needs to happen.



That one's probably true, though.

No, it is not. You need to stop drinking whatever koolaid led you to believe that in the first place so you don't fall for the next disinformation blitz that hits. We went though this in 2016. LOL

 

[Agema]

Yes! Thank you! That's exactly why it's divisive and exclusionary.

It's not even half as divisive and exclusionary as policing that widely targets certain groups in the populace for harassment and excessive use of force. A slogan that encourages people not to notice or do anything about that disparity is more divisive and exclusionary than one that does.

This is the exhausting bullshit trick since forever. It extends into every sphere of disparity, not just law enforcement but economy, society, etc. Employ platitudes of universal generalisations and principles, even though they bear no relation to the reality. We can look at the US Declaration of Independence itself: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness " - and yet that nascent state had slavery and maintained it for nearly a century. Thus there is a long history of inequality hidden behind fraudulent appeals to equality.

All lives matter is the same trick. It is the most cynical of ways to combat egalitarianism with the rhetoric of egalitarianism. It is the systematic attempt to wipe out marginalised groups having a voice. Should black people, or Asian, or anyone find themselves discriminated against, they are not even allowed to directly point it out. They are expected to disguise their specific, unfair disadvantage by framing it as universality, and in the process surrender discussion of their discrimination to the very same people that have supported or ignored that discrimination. What is it really telling us when "All Lives Matter" spills out of the mouths of people who have pretty much never, ever shown any interest in dealing with police victimisation of racial minorities? Let's take Mike Pence:

I really believe that all lives matter... And that's where the heart of the American people lies.

So, let's see how hot Pence is on addressing this matter:

It’s a challenging time to be in law enforcement, but I would tell you that Donald Trump and I know and believe that the men and women of law enforcement — our white officers, our African American officers, our Hispanic, Latino and Asian officers — they’re the best of us and we ought to set aside this talk … about institutional racism and institutional bias.

So, "nothing's wrong, carry on as before", then. #AllLivesMatter, in a nutshell.

 

[Buyetyen]

If you're more concerned with being called a racist than actually doing something about racism, it's probably because you're a racist. Just putting that out there.

 

[Schadrach]

Isn't there a bunch of Twitter agitation tagging BLM and talking about voting to repeal CA Prop 209? The one that says "(a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."

It's weird that a group that exists to oppose police brutality and promote equality would also push something like that.

When Schadrach said that there are other groups that are harmed by the police, I said that the point is fix the policing system so all citizens do not have to fear them.

Except it's not "Black Lives Matter" because black lives are specifically or uniquely harmed more than any other group, but rather that they are harmed more than some groups and they're a politically acceptable group to advocate for, and the whole point is about fixing a specific lens as the only "valid" lens through which to discuss the issue. The other group I was referencing in that post was men (see the image in my second post) - the point being that despite men as a class having worse results from interactions with law enforcement relative to women by most measures than black folks have relative to white folks you can't argue something akin to "Men's Lives Matter" specifically because men are not a politically acceptable group to advocate for.

Which I suppose is why cop unions, PBA's, and both types of FOP's just keep letting those bad apples slip through the cracks, while defending them from criminal charges, termination, suspension, or really any sort of negative consequence whatsoever, and being a persistent and influential source of pressure against any sort of substantive reform, transparency, or accountability.

Cop unions do what all unions do - protect workers. Cop unions aren't letting bad apples "slip through the cracks", they're specifically negotiating to make it difficult to remove them. Because that's part of what "protecting the interests of workers" means, and police unions are especially powerful because of how essential police are.

It originally was just about females getting equality and then became about everyone getting equality.

Is it? I could start quoting folks, and noting official positions from the larger lobby organizations under that philosophical umbrella but that would be way off topic for this thread. I'll just note that like BLM it's not just about the stated topic but about fixing a specific lens as the only "valid" way to look at that topic.

 

[Seanchaidh]

No, it is not. You need to stop drinking whatever koolaid led you to believe that in the first place so you don't fall for the next disinformation blitz that hits. We went though this in 2016. LOL

You don't think a former secretary of state is capable of ordering a hit and getting away with it?

 

[Agema]

The other group I was referencing in that post was men (see the image in my second post) - the point being that despite men as a class having worse results from interactions with law enforcement relative to women by most measures than black folks have relative to white folks you can't argue something akin to "Men's Lives Matter" specifically because men are not a politically acceptable group to advocate for.

Or the fact that these other disparities are extremely hard to identify. After all, your image essentially takes a load of data not fit for purpose in the first place, and then makes dubious extrapolations from them.

 

[Hades]

You don't think a former secretary of state is capable of ordering a hit and getting away with it?

Indeed I don't. Clinton has been a broken politician since 2016. Maybe, just maybe if we believe the absolute worst of her she might have been able to do so before her defeat but certainly not after it. This is why her being the supposed architect of Epstein's death amused me. Rather then look at the acquaintance who's all powerful and extremely corrupt they instead look at the broken politician.

 

[dreng3]

You don't think a former secretary of state is capable of ordering a hit and getting away with it?

Could? Perhaps.
Would? Probably not.

A lot of stuff goes into assassination, and if it is someone the secretary of state feels it necessary to have killed it will most likely cause a degree of upheaval and investigation that makes other courses of action more viable.
In the short term you need to worry about finding an assassin, probably not hard for someone with the background and wealth of Clinton, but you also need to worry about accidents during the killing, what if someone walks in, what if it doesn't go smoothly, what if the assassin is hit by a loose roofing tile while leaving the scene of the crime?

The long term there is the problem of exposure. Unless the assassin is so well paid that they never need to commit another crime they might get caught in the act and use your name in a bargain for leniency, or they might choose to blackmail you instead of committing another crime.

Much easier to just assassinate the character of someone.

 

[Houseman]

It's not even half as divisive and exclusionary as

Aha! So it is divisive and exclusionary! It's just not AS divisive and exclusionary as some other things. Which makes it okay?
Regardless, you agree with me. Thank you.

No. Literally hundreds of thousands of charities focus exclusively on issues affecting specific people. There are countless women's charities, such as refuges or domestic abuse charities.

Yeah, you'd think that to be the case, right? But once you start to do a little research, you'll find that charities aren't as discriminatory as their names might imply.

For example, Girls Who Code? Anyone, regardless of gender identity, can participate. Now, why is that? Why isn't it a safe, "girls-only" space? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Because doing otherwise would be illegal?

And I found this .pdf: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=cjlpp which contains lots of examples of case law

Here's a much easier to read powerpoint which says basically the same thing: http://www.cba.org/cba/cle/PDF/CHAR11_Parachin_Slides.pdf

It seems the law is inconsistent in this matter, and has yet to put their foot down, but the general trend is to not enforce discriminatory trusts on the basis of race or sex. As an example, Grant Home v. Medlock, it was supposed to be a charitable trust to build a home for "needy, elderly, white Presbyterians", and they wanted to dissolve it on the basis of discrimination, but instead, merely the discrimination parts were stricken. In other examples, race and sex discrimination clauses were stricken, but religious discrimination was upheld.

There's an an amusing case in there where a trust was allocated to a hospital on the condition that the funds were to be used ONLY for white babies. In actuality, all that really did was free up funds to go to babies of other colors, since the white babies were already 'paid for', so the racist intent backfired and it was allowed to go through as is.

So that's interesting.

Why is something "divisive and exclusionary" if it focuses exclusively on an issue that affects people with an inherent characteristic, but not if it focuses exclusively on an issue that affects people with a acquired characteristic?

Because the oft-brought-up Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of inherent characteristics like race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. Arguably, religion is the only one among those that are "acquired". There are other laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of Veteran status, but those mainly involves hiring practices, as opposed to civil rights, IIRC.

As opposed to other issues.

To answer your question, no, it's not, because it invites everybody to fight modern slavery, and helps all modern slaves. It would only be discriminatory if it were only about helping black slaves, or male slaves while hanging everyone else out to dry.

Again, why does "divisive and exclusionary" not apply if it focuses exclusively on "something that a person is for a temporary period of time, and is something that everyone is or used to be"?

You're adding more caveats and qualifications every step of the way.

No, I'm being consistent. See above about the Civil Rights Act.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Isn't there a bunch of Twitter agitation tagging BLM and talking about voting to repeal CA Prop 209? The one that says "(a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."

It's weird that a group that exists to oppose police brutality and promote equality would also push something like that.

I've literally not heard a thing about it and I'm on Twitter quite a bit. Not a lot of chatter but, from what little it's being talked about, it's basically an affirmative action fight.
As in, ca prop 209 banned affirmative action programs.
So they're back to the good ol' "we only hire the most qualified people and, purely coincidentally, that just happens to be white people 95% of the time, trust us"

That said, like those Indian folks getting brutalized by police tagging in ALM to no avail, while BLM gets tagged into it, it's not really a BLM thing.

It's also very off topic for a thread about cops rioting

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I've literally not heard a thing about it and I'm on Twitter quite a bit. Not a lot of chatter but, from what little it's being talked about, it's basically an affirmative action fight.
As in, ca prop 209 banned affirmative action programs.
So they're back to the good ol' "we only hire the most qualified people and, purely coincidentally, that just happens to be white people 95% of the time, trust us"

Because affirmative actions programs hurt black people rather than helped.

 

[Avnger]

Because affirmative actions programs hurt black people rather than helped.

 

[Houseman]

Citation Needed

I just typed "affirmative action hurts black students" into a search engine and this was the first result:

https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/how-affirmative-action-colleges-hurts-minority-students

People who benefit from affirmative action, as well as white students admitted as "legacies", are much more likely to get low grades and/or drop out. They didn't get in based on their academics, so they're not necessarily prepared for the rigorous standards that they are expected to meet, so they fail. It's like moving someone up two weight classes and then expecting them to compete at the same level.

It even mentions how prop 209 has been beneficial in reversing the problem the article points out, the very anti-discrimination law that BLM proponents are trying to repeal.

Something something learn from history something something doomed to repeat it.

 

[Avnger]

I just typed "affirmative action hurts black students" into a search engine and this was the first result:

https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/how-affirmative-action-colleges-hurts-minority-students

People who benefit from affirmative action, as well as white students admitted as "legacies", are much more likely to get low grades and/or drop out. They didn't get in based on their academics, so they're not necessarily prepared for the rigorous standards that they are expected to meet, so they fail. It's like moving someone up two weight classes and then expecting them to compete at the same level.

It even mentions how prop 209 has been beneficial in reversing the problem the article points out, the very anti-discrimination law that BLM proponents are trying to repeal.

Something something learn from history something something doomed to repeat it.

You realize you just linked an opinion piece from the poster-boy for (conservative) partisan think-tanks? That's not a factual source any more than the ramblings of 4-Tooth Eddy who panhandles on the corner of 25th and Broadway.

So again,

 

[Silvanus]

Aha! So it is divisive and exclusionary! It's just not AS divisive and exclusionary as some other things. Which makes it okay?
Regardless, you agree with me. Thank you.

D'you think that maybe a topic as raw and sensitive as racial killings deserves a little more respect and a little less flippancy? It's shit like this that convinces me you're not actually interested in healing divisions.

The talk of "divisiveness" is entirely cynical on your part.

Yeah, you'd think that to be the case, right? But once you start to do a little research, you'll find that charities aren't as discriminatory as their names might imply.

For example, Girls Who Code? Anyone, regardless of gender identity, can participate. Now, why is that? Why isn't it a safe, "girls-only" space? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Because doing otherwise would be illegal?

And I found this .pdf: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=cjlpp which contains lots of examples of case law

Here's a much easier to read powerpoint which says basically the same thing: http://www.cba.org/cba/cle/PDF/CHAR11_Parachin_Slides.pdf

It seems the law is inconsistent in this matter, and has yet to put their foot down, but the general trend is to not enforce discriminatory trusts on the basis of race or sex. As an example, Grant Home v. Medlock, it was supposed to be a charitable trust to build a home for "needy, elderly, white Presbyterians", and they wanted to dissolve it on the basis of discrimination, but instead, merely the discrimination parts were stricken. In other examples, race and sex discrimination clauses were stricken, but religious discrimination was upheld.

There's an an amusing case in there where a trust was allocated to a hospital on the condition that the funds were to be used ONLY for white babies. In actuality, all that really did was free up funds to go to babies of other colors, since the white babies were already 'paid for', so the racist intent backfired and it was allowed to go through as is.

So that's interesting.

Yes, you've found a few examples of charities that allow people outside their core target audience to join. And others don't, like various women's shelters. This is beside the point.

Addressing one issue does not somehow obligate you to address all other issues. That "Girls Who Code" charity is not somehow obligated to change its slogan to be, "Anyone can code". It's not obligated to spend equal resources on all disciplines besides coding. It was set up to address a specific thing.

Because the oft-brought-up Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of inherent characteristics like race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. Arguably, religion is the only one among those that are "acquired". There are other laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of Veteran status, but those mainly involves hiring practices, as opposed to civil rights, IIRC.

Yes, but you're not complaining about an institution or organisation with discriminatory practices. You're complaining about a slogan, and the intention to address a specific racial disparity.

Please, go ahead and attempt to make a legal argument that the Civil Rights Act applies to slogans. Go ahead and argue that the Civil Rights Act prevents people from arguing against racial discrimination.

No, it's blindingly obvious to anyone with the slightest inkling of the law that the Civil Rights Act doesn't apply.

To answer your question, no, it's not, because it invites everybody to fight modern slavery, and helps all modern slaves. It would only be discriminatory if it were only about helping black slaves, or male slaves while hanging everyone else out to dry.

Ok, let me put it this way.

The issue that the "Black Lives Matter" slogan is intended to address is a racial disparity in treatment. That is the issue under discussion.

Can you establish that specific issue-- racist killings by US police forces-- equally affects white people?

 

[Specter Von Baren]

You realize you just linked an opinion piece from the poster-boy for (conservative) partisan think-tanks? That's not a factual source any more than the ramblings of 4-Tooth Eddy who panhandles on the corner of 25th and Broadway.

So again,

Is his data wrong? It shouldn't matter what party someone is from. What matters is the content of their argument and data.

 

[Buyetyen]

Is his data wrong? It shouldn't matter what party someone is from. What matters is the content of their argument and data.

You're asking us to pretend that the presentation of the data isn't coming from a bunch of arch-conservative elitists with a track record of misrepresenting data to make false claims (e.g. climate change). Credibility matters.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

You're asking us to pretend that the presentation of the data isn't coming from a bunch of arch-conservative elitists with a track record of misrepresenting data to make false claims (e.g. climate change). Credibility matters.

Then you should feel no fear disputing the data he presents instead of just saying, "Nope, doesn't count".