How Problematic is "All Lives Matter?"

[ObsidianJones]

*snip*

Telling women not to get raped is shifting the blame.

More over, as I said before which you once again left out, Teaching Men not to behave like absolute rejects of society is step 2-infinity. It must happen, which was my point, but the first important step is the protection of the innocent. Secure their well being, and THEN deal with the rapists.

Because we should all be frankly tired of stuff like this. And warning, these examples here in the spoiler...really put up your mental guards if you click on it.

Spoiler

Steubenville High School Rape Case

Glen Ridge rape

James Martin High School Rape

https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/crime/article/3-more-students-arrested-La-Vernia-hazing-scandal-11068363.php

https://nypost.com/2016/08/31/high-school-basketball-players-convicted-in-pool-cue-rape-case/

*snip*

You say that it's going to get you labelled a white supremacist. I have not. I have not witnessed others doing that action. But let's not dismiss it because I have not seen it.

If you speak of a hypothetical (and possibly real) segment of the BLM that will label you a racist for stating this is a class issue, and I bring up a hypothetical (and possibly real) segment of the police force who tweet out on the daily that they hope this is the start of the race war... What, are we both right? Are we both wrong? We have examples on both of our points. Do we get to ignore the other and cling to what we can show over and over again as definitive proof? That everything he heard about the benevolence of these parties is merely a fallacy?

Or is it a numbers game? Do we have to have a certain threshold of provable acts that disprove the PR Benevolence of a certain party? Because I can win that race with a meandering walk, the amount of evidence I can just type into google and be flooded with. In fact, boom. Headstart.

And why do we keep making it about Race? Two words. Racial Profiling. An issue that even Affluent Blacks still suffer to right now.

It happens to Olympic Athletes , world famous comedians, Black Entrepreneurs (and this also shows it's not just police... but if you really want to go to the "#...while black" side of things, we'll be here all day).

I'm very well and fine with us and all people banding together to solve the problem. But we actually have to solve the problems, not only tackle the ones we want to expend energy on. That involves Class Based Problems, Gender Based Problems, and yes, Race Based Problems.

 

[gorfias]

Snipping as the site is giving me a hard time: seems to allow me to post if I reduce the size of the post...

You could probably start a whole thread on the "white supremacist" thing. I'm thinking after people calling milk toast Romney a racist and sounding silly doing so, the term has lost too much of its impact so a lot of people started using that other term. First time I recall hearing it was on a Canadian talk show/debate. It was when Jordan Peterson was first getting famous. The term was used and I'm certain the user was not meaning guys in hoods, but everyday white people. Since then, I'm hearing it a lot.

Is excessive force by cops simply a race matter? I read that, on a per capita basis, black people killed by cops matches proportionally, the number of Pilipino Americans killed in this manner when factoring in crime rates.

Black people in the USA commit a disproportionate amount of crime relative to other identifiable demographic groups. That in and of itself is a social failing in need of correcting. Reduce income disparity. Improve our K-7th grade (Radical here. I want the young to leave school and get their 1st jobs on a path to earning licenses, certs. etc. after the 7th) and more.

But to take a unifying problem everyone can get behind trying to fix and then making it about race and polarizing people, is, at a minimum, I think, wrong headed.

It just strikes me as something like opening a new business: Weight Watchers: Black. Why? Lots of us are fat (including me... I'm old but working on it!) and we should all be fighting to be healthier.

 

[Houseman]

Telling women not to get raped is shifting the blame.

I think you misread. I never said anything about "telling women not to get raped". I said that the slogan was "teach men not to rape" and pointed out that there are efforts that try to do this.

More over, as I said before which you once again left out, Teaching Men not to behave like absolute rejects of society is step 2-infinity. It must happen, which was my point, but the first important step is the protection of the innocent. Secure their well being, and THEN deal with the rapists.

This is all well and good, and I'm not leaving it out or ignoring it. It just simply doesn't apply to BLM. It doesn't apply, because you're presupposing that the root problem is KNOWN. You're assuming that BLM knows that the real root problem isn't racism, and you're assuming that once the "police brutality" problem is solved, they'll shift focus to tackle the real root problem, poverty. BLM doesn't have a step 2.

I don't think that they will. I think that they're convinced that the root problem IS racism, which is not true. The path they're on leads to a dead end.

Y'know, you could say that BLM making it about race is shifting the blame. I'm not saying that black people should be blaming themselves for their own poverty, just that "who is to blame for the poverty of black people" can't simply be answered with "white people!"

 

[ObsidianJones]

You could probably start a whole thread on the "white supremacist" thing. I'm thinking after people calling milk toast Romney a racist and sounding silly doing so, the term has lost too much of its impact so a lot of people started using that other term. First time I recall hearing it was on a Canadian talk show/debate. It was when Jordan Peterson was first getting famous. The term was used and I'm certain the user was not meaning guys in hoods, but everyday white people. Since then, I'm hearing it a lot.

Is excessive force by cops simply a race matter? I read that, on a per capita basis, black people killed by cops matches proportionally, the number of Pilipino Americans killed in this manner when factoring in crime rates.

Black people in the USA commit a disproportionate amount of crime relative to other identifiable demographic groups. That in and of itself is a social failing in need of correcting. Reduce income disparity. Improve our K-7th grade (Radical here. I want the young to leave school and get their 1st jobs on a path to earning licenses, certs. etc. after the 7th) and more.

But to take a unifying problem everyone can get behind trying to fix and then making it about race and polarizing people, is, at a minimum, I think, wrong headed.

It just strikes me as something like opening a new business: Weight Watchers: Black. Why? Lots of us are fat (including me... I'm old but working on it!) and we should all be fighting to be healthier.

I'm going to ask you this.

We know that Blacks commit crime how? By police officers' reporting. Posts pass I just linked you to quotas and corrupt cops. Both who have a vested interest in lying.

Do you actually know what the amount of crimes blacks commit? Or are you basing this on something that should be at least questioned for it's veracity, when one cop can arrest 40-70 innocent men? Or if sheriffs just tell you to round up black men if you can't find the answers.

The overwhelming amount of people freed through the innocence Project are black. 60%.

I couldn't even pick one study that shows how many minorities compared to the majority are arrested for resisting arrest as the underlying charge.

You have enough to at least question your data. Or at least take a look of the source that is supplying you with the data, the same body that routinely finds that they aren't at fault. Have you asked why you cling to it?

Or, more over. If I supplied you with stat after stat that shows the rampant abuse that the police do daily and throughout our history as a nation... and the people who were doing the studies were NAACP or Black Lives Matter, would you be likely to listen to it or disavow it?

I think you misread. I never said anything about "telling women not to get raped". I said that the slogan was "teach men not to rape" and pointed out that there are efforts that try to do this.

This is all well and good, and I'm not leaving it out or ignoring it. It just simply doesn't apply to BLM. It doesn't apply, because you're presupposing that the root problem is KNOWN. You're assuming that BLM knows that the real root problem isn't racism, and you're assuming that once the "police brutality" problem is solved, they'll shift focus to tackle the real root problem, poverty. BLM doesn't have a step 2.

I don't think that they will. I think that they're convinced that the root problem IS racism, which is not true. The path they're on leads to a dead end.

Y'know, you could say that BLM making it about race is shifting the blame. I'm not saying that black people should be blaming themselves for their own poverty, just that "who is to blame for the poverty of black people" can't simply be answered with "white people!"

The picture you chose had that right on the front. "Teach 'Don't Rape', not 'Don't Get Raped'"

I've said countless times that BLM started to combat and end police brutality. That is what I will answer for. Anything else is ignoring what I'm saying and conflating it with your view of the world, which is not shared.

If you have proof that they have no end goal, supply the data. We'll go over it together.

If you don't have data, this is conjecture. Based on your personal feelings of the movement. Your feelings are valid as they are something you believe. But your belief does not make reality.

Because in this reality, Racial Profiling is a thing. It's why we have the "#..while Black" theme that's been going on for so long. It's why white people are stopping lawful business people, tenants, and drivers of cars because they take one look at the person and can not believe that person could have come about this situation legally.

In this reality, countless cops are being stung by racist facebook groups, the FBI itself said it can not keep count of all the Ghost skins, and the wonderful quotas that are always being slated to be filled by minorities.

And this is something you have to prove is happening due to strictly class and not race. Because there are no Ghostskins for rich people trying to infiltrate the police force to take it to those dirty poor people. There isn't a bastion of secretly wealthy cops who are really looking to fill out their quotas by arresting those poor people who just because of happenstance has more melanin in their skin.

Because it's not enough to say "Nah, it isn't happening".

 

[Houseman]

The picture you chose had that right on the front. "Teach 'Don't Rape', not 'Don't Get Raped'"

That's the exact opposite of "telling women not to get raped", isn't it? Please, walk me through your logic here, because I don't see how what I've said can be viewed as "telling women not to get raped".

I've said countless times that BLM started to combat and end police brutality.

Well, that's not even true. BLM started in response to Trayvon Martin, who wasn't killed because of police brutality.

If you have proof that they have no end goal, supply the data. We'll go over it together.

I never said they had no end goal. I said that they have no Step 2.

Here's what BLM says on it's /about page:

#BlackLivesMatter was founded in 2013 in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murderer. Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada, whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes. By combating and countering acts of violence, creating space for Black imagination and innovation, and centering Black joy, we are winning immediate improvements in our lives.

That's their stated mission.

If anything, this is their step 2:

We are working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise.

They're not working for a world where black people have the same economic standing as white people. They're trying to stop the "violence" and then that's it, they're done, their ideal world is realized.

It's the wrong step 2. It's the wrong step 1. Every step that leads further off the clip if a wrong step.

They'll never be able to stop the "violence" this way. The "violence" will continue so long as black people are still disproportionately poor. The only way they'll be able to completely stop the violence is if they completely remove the capability for police to commit acts of violence, which they need to be able to do in order to police properly.

. It's why white people are stopping lawful business people, tenants, and drivers of cars because they take one look at the person and can not believe that person could have come about this situation legally.

Race isn't the causation, it's the correlation. The causation is that higher police presence and activity is explained by higher crime rates, which is, in turn, explained by poverty.

In a poor white community, white people are going to be getting stopped more often. In a poor Hispanic community, Hispanic people are going to be getting stopped more often. It's a correlation, not a causation, and I've already linked the study that suggests that.

And this is something you have to prove is happening due to strictly class and not race.

I'm not claiming that racism isn't a problem within the police. I'm saying it's not the cause of the widespread problems that people are protesting.

Because it's not enough to say "Nah, it isn't happening".

Nobody is saying that it isn't happening. What is being said is "This isn't the reason why it's happening".

 

[gorfias]

We know that Blacks commit crime how?

A good question. We should question data that we're getting from the government.
I don't think the numbers are far off though. There are all sorts of crimes I could see where the cops tamper with things to make more arrests and meet their quotas, or other.
Homicide I'm advised is different. You really have someone dead. You are much more likely to get a report that it happened (lots of crime goes unreported but one that leaves a body?).
According to this link in 2018, if I'm reading this correctly, nearly as many black people as white were homicide victims. Typically, people are murdered by people of their own race. The numbers are nearly even, yet white people in the USA outnumber black people by a factor of 4 or 5? That is a lot.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls

Of course, if I want to get existential, I don't really know this link reports anything true at all.

But accepting this is real, then, there's a problem and it has been identified as having a leading cause stemming from income inequality. There must be just and fair ways to diminish this inequality.

But even that does not have to be polarizing, even if white people are less likely to be poor than other identifiable demographic groups. There really are poor white communities out there and making allies of them, I think, would be a better strategy than vilifying them for the immutable characteristics with which they were born.

EDIT: Uh Oh. https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/

This is bad. This is polarizing.

"mission is to eradicate white supremacy". They're not writing of the KKK. And I told you, that term is getting a lot of use these days.

 

[Jarrito3002]

I think you misread. I never said anything about "telling women not to get raped". I said that the slogan was "teach men not to rape" and pointed out that there are efforts that try to do this.



This is all well and good, and I'm not leaving it out or ignoring it. It just simply doesn't apply to BLM. It doesn't apply, because you're presupposing that the root problem is KNOWN. You're assuming that BLM knows that the real root problem isn't racism, and you're assuming that once the "police brutality" problem is solved, they'll shift focus to tackle the real root problem, poverty. BLM doesn't have a step 2.

I don't think that they will. I think that they're convinced that the root problem IS racism, which is not true. The path they're on leads to a dead end.

Y'know, you could say that BLM making it about race is shifting the blame. I'm not saying that black people should be blaming themselves for their own poverty, just that "who is to blame for the poverty of black people" can't simply be answered with "white people!"

BLM matter is whole purpose is to focus on police brutality to black people. Is it going to do a complete 360 of the problem of course not. Expecting a singular entity to do so is immature and misguided at best.

MLK wasn't the single entity that made the civil rights movement nor his party and organization so this extra stress on BLM to take all this in is suspect at best.

 

[Houseman]

BLM matter is whole purpose is to focus on police brutality to black people

And they're going about solving the problem in entirely the wrong way because their reasoning is based on a logical fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation.

It's like they're saying that going to bed with your shoes own causes headaches. No, it's because you were drunk that you went to bed with your shoes on, and that's what caused the headaches.

If they really want to solve the problem of police brutality towards black people, they'd be focused on economic growth of black communities.

To Obsidian's credit, you might have a point in saying "well that would take too long. We need relief now!" and that's fine as long as you don't forget the root problem.
A dentist that only fixes cavities and offers no help on how to prevent cavities in the future is at best, a bad dentist, and at worst an actively harmful dentist that just wants your money and doesn't care about you.

 

[Jarrito3002]

And they're going about solving the problem in entirely the wrong way because their reasoning is based on a logical fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation.

It's like they're saying that going to bed with your shoes own causes headaches. No, it's because you were drunk that you went to bed with your shoes on, and that's what caused the headaches.

If they really want to solve the problem of police brutality towards black people, they'd be focused on economic growth of black communities.

To Obsidian's credit, you might have a point in saying "well that would take too long. We need relief now!" and that's fine as long as you don't forget the root problem.
A dentist that only fixes cavities and offers no help on how to prevent cavities in the future is at best, a bad dentist, and at worst an actively harmful dentist that just wants your money and doesn't care about you.

Police reform and discussions about the abuses of police unions are national discusses and political talking points. Economic growth is not going to make the police go
this guy has money this him nicely". Plenty of black people in any economic tier deal with profiling and abuse so saying get more money as the is a small and extremely limited view.

Root problem is even after a country said all men are created equal yet still had slaves, a whole civil war with the main caveat is the ownership of slaves and then new laws and barriers to make sure these former slaves to not prosper, bomb them if they do and then make "separate but equal" laws and snowball effect that is still effecting to this day.

If you think the Root problem is pure economic growth and nothing your solution is as small and a drop in the bucket as you accuse BLM of.

 

[ObsidianJones]

*snip*

Tell me where I said you said the same. I already stated that I was speaking about what the picture you posted. That's what the picture is stating. Teach men not to rape, don't say don't get raped. I responded to the picture. I never said you created the picture. I never said you countered the picture.

You quoted right there that the mission is to stop violence visited in blacks from the State and Vigilantes. There is a difference between an inciting incident and a mission statement.

I'm struggling here, so bare with me. I'm going to keep as much as the edge from my tone as possible. But everything you say feels willful, and it hinders my ability to want to keep this up.

Do you honestly think that Women Against Abuse or Battered Women's Justice Project would consider it their ideal world if Abuse and violence towards women will just go away? That a world that still has income disparity between the genders, equal representation in governing, and/or autonomy over their own bodies (in terms of reproductive rights) will still be considered ideal?

No. We both know that isn't the case. They are choosing to focus on this. Just like our government and all government has many branches. People who feel they can help the most via education goes into education. Those who feel they can help via healthcare will go into healthcare. These activists who think they can help ease what women go through via Abuse chose this path because it was the one that spoke to them, just like the activists who sided with Black Lives Matter chose this path because it spoke to them.

You're unfairly trying to have Black Lives Matter be responsible for every ill that befalls a Black person on this planet.

I will take time to scower the internet to find the "One World Betterment" group that has a contentious and well thought out plan to erase every single ill from poverty to self-advocacy for every single 7.8 Billion people on this planet. Until I find it, I will say that Black Lives Matter's singular approach to making sure blacks aren't victimized at the hands of the state and vigilantes is on par with every other single group that is dedicated to one singular goal.

*snips*

So. you say we should question the data and then automatically say that this data is largely correct. Even with all the stuff I post in almost every post related to this that there have been large numbers of false incarnations and made up crimes by police officers to pad their numbers in order to earn their pay.

Well, my next question is what is there left to speak about? You made up your mind. I assume the data is tainted, therefore unusable. Because the data the world uses is supplied by one party who has a vested interest.

It can be shown to me that the crime rate is more or less real. It can be shown to me that the crime rate is heavily padded and made up. I question the data and put no stock in any data supplied to me by one of the parties who has skin in this situation. Independent studies or nothing at all.

And unless every arrest has an independent civilian who reports to just their own body, we will never have true empirical data.

And that's polarizing to your perceptive. They ARE talking about the KKK. The KKK is a White Supremacist Group. White Supremacy has been a term since we've been children.

If someone told me they wanted to get rid of a Black Supremacist group, the next thing I'll say is "tell me how do I help". There's nothing polarizing in my heart when I hear such a statement. Because they are considering white people inferior and that simply isn't the case. Every human is equal. I don't care if the group considers me a brother just because we have the same melanin count in our skin. That Bullshit doesn't fly.

 

[gorfias]

So. you say we should question the data and then automatically say that this data is largely correct. Even with all the stuff I post in almost every post related to this that there have been large numbers of false incarnations and made up crimes by police officers to pad their numbers in order to earn their pay.

Well, my next question is what is there left to speak about? You made up your mind. I assume the data is tainted, therefore unusable. Because the data the world uses is supplied by one party who has a vested interest.

It can be shown to me that the crime rate is more or less real. It can be shown to me that the crime rate is heavily padded and made up. I question the data and put no stock in any data supplied to me by one of the parties who has skin in this situation. Independent studies or nothing at all.

And unless every arrest has an independent civilian who reports to just their own body, we will never have true empirical data.

And that's polarizing to your perceptive. They ARE talking about the KKK. The KKK is a White Supremacist Group. White Supremacy has been a term since we've been children.

If someone told me they wanted to get rid of a Black Supremacist group, the next thing I'll say is "tell me how do I help". There's nothing polarizing in my heart when I hear such a statement. Because they are considering white people inferior and that simply isn't the case. Every human is equal. I don't care if the group considers me a brother just because we have the same melanin count in our skin. That Bullshit doesn't fly.

I don't think this guy is talking about the KKK. Nor is the BLM web page.
@ around 18 minutes. And I think he continues tripling down.
We can find the homicide stats I list completely fake. At that point, I do not know how we believe anything. Any number. Anywhere. Assuming those numbers are real, we can extrapolate things from them. There is a problem in the Black community that should be addressed. Fair things should be implemented that can result in a more jsut society.
I am glad you would fight a black supremacist group. I think that was what Terry Crews was talking about.

 

[Houseman]

Economic growth is not going to make the police go this guy has money this him nicely"

It's going to reduce police encounters overall, which means fewer chances for an encounter to go sideways, which means that black people are no longer over-represented on the fatality statistics.

If, after we "solve poverty", the statistics still show a racial bias, then by all means, reboot BLM to finish the problem off for good.
But until then, focus on solving the root problem.

You can't do this out of order. It won't work if you do it out of order. The root problem will ensure that the number of police fatalities stay high.

If you think the Root problem is pure economic growth and nothing your solution is as small and a drop in the bucket as you accuse BLM of.

I think you made a typo or skipped a word somewhere in that sentence, but I got the gist of it.

So, you know where I got the idea that economic growth is the problem from?
It's from this study.

The logic is clear and simple.
Black people are disproportionately killed by police.
Why? Because more police encounters lead to more fatalities.
Why are there more police encounters? Because higher crime rates lead to higher police encounters.
Why are there higher crime rates? Because poverty leads to higher crime rates?
So why are black people disproportionately killed by police? Because they are more likely to be in poverty.

Can you disprove any of this? I don't think you can.

Tell me where I said you said the same. I already stated that I was speaking about what the picture you posted. That's what the picture is stating. Teach men not to rape, don't say don't get raped. I responded to the picture. I never said you created the picture. I never said you countered the picture.

You said
> "When we call for safety of women in campuses, we do not say "Wait, wait. Can we talk to the men first and go through lengthy psychology sessions to solve their root issue that causes these rapes?""
Then I said:
> "Isn't that exactly what "Teach men not to rape" is about?" and posted that picture.
Then you said:
> "Telling women not to get raped is shifting the blame."
And there's where the communication breakdown happened. I never said anything about "telling women not to get raped", so I was confused as to why you would bring that up. So then I said:
> " I never said anything about "telling women not to get raped"."
And then you said:
> "The picture you chose had that right on the front. "Teach 'Don't Rape', not 'Don't Get Raped'""
To which I said:
> "That's the exact opposite of "telling women not to get raped", isn't it?"

And now we're here.

I just want to know why you accused me of "shifting the blame" and "telling women not to get raped", because I never said anything like that. I think you misread something. So please, if you want this resolved, just answer the question. Why did you accuse me of "shifting the blame" and "telling women not to get raped". That's not something I've ever said. That's not what the sign in the picture says. I don't know where you got that from, so please, tell me. WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT "TELLING WOMEN NOT TO GET RAPED"?! WHERE DID YOU GET THAT FROM? Please explain.

No. We both know that isn't the case. They are choosing to focus on this.

I think you took my statement more literally than I meant it. I am not criticizing BLM for not trying to create a perfect world. That was just a sarcastic remark on my part playing off of their own verbiage, "the world that they are working toward". I am criticizing them for focusing on a symptom of the problem, while thinking that they're solving the root problem.

They think that black people will stop getting disproportionately killed and brutalized if they just "eradicate white supremacy". White supremacy isn't what causes black people to die at the hands of the police. Poverty causes that. Even if 5% of black police-caused-fatalities are due to racist white cops, and BLM gets rid of that 5%, do you think that BLM will be satisfied with that and dissolve? No, of course not. Because the disproportion between black fatalities and white fatalities is WAY more than 5%. Why? Because the disproportion isn't caused by "white supremacy".

I wouldn't even be criticizing them this hard if they would recognize that the symptom is the symptom. But no. They think they're fixing the whole shebang.

You're unfairly trying to have Black Lives Matter be responsible for every ill that befalls a Black person on this planet.

I'm not.

 

[Trunkage]

I don't think this guy is talking about the KKK. Nor is the BLM web page.
@ around 18 minutes. And I think he continues tripling down.
We can find the homicide stats I list completely fake. At that point, I do not know how we believe anything. Any number. Anywhere. Assuming those numbers are real, we can extrapolate things from them. There is a problem in the Black community that should be addressed. Fair things should be implemented that can result in a more jsut society.
I am glad you would fight a black supremacist group. I think that was what Terry Crews was talking about.

Sorry, can‘t see your videos as I’m at work. Is this the Nick Cannon stuff? Because that stuff was nuts. Him pretending that the only reason he was getting criticism was that he was black and not because he said something racist was so Trumpian

 

[gorfias]

Sorry, can‘t see your videos as I’m at work. Is this the Nick Cannon stuff? Because that stuff was nuts. Him pretending that the only reason he was getting criticism was that he was black and not because he said something racist was so Trumpian

The black fellow is, I think, Ronaldo Walcott. He keeps saying the word, "fundamental" in a way that makes me think that word does not mean what he thinks it means. But he says a lot of racist despicable things that seem to suggest that he thinks black people cannot keep up with others and therefore need special privileges to be equal. He also states something to the effect that expecting people to merit things, to work hard for things and be worthy of the position and power one would work for is, "white supremacy". He thinks too little of all races IMHO.

 

[Trunkage]

The black fellow is, I think, Ronaldo Walcott. He keeps saying the word, "fundamental" in a way that makes me think that word does not mean what he thinks it means. But he says a lot of racist despicable things that seem to suggest that he thinks black people cannot keep up with others and therefore need special privileges to be equal. He also states something to the effect that expecting people to merit things, to work hard for things and be worthy of the position and power one would work for is, "white supremacy". He thinks too little of all races IMHO.

Wait.. is that the church minister spewing all this stuff too? I might have to do some research

Edit: I was think of Lewis Farrakhan. I seem to remember a quote being "your high melanin count determines how smart you were." (As in, the white people are the dumbest.) Although, that might have been Professor Gtiff

 

[gorfias]

Wait.. is that the church minister spewing all this stuff too? I might have to do some research

Edit: I was think of Lewis Farrakhan. I seem to remember a quote being "your high melanin count determines how smart you were." (As in, the white people are the dumbest.) Although, that might have been Professor Gtiff

Yow! I did not know who Nick Cannon was! What a dolt. Individual people can be louts, regardless of race.

Farrakhan apparently belongs to a similar religious wing as did Malcolm X. In the biopic about Malcolm, he does go through a phase where he is taught that all white people, no matter how nice they may seem to be, are the devil. A white girl asks him what someone like her can do to help black people. He famously replies "nothing". Less famous is he later stated he regretted saying that and had evolving views of others. At least that is what Spike Lee's movie portrays. I do not know Farrakhan ever had that evolution.
I don't know who Professor Gtiff is (Griff?) Reviewing... EDIT. Oh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Griff

 

[Jarrito3002]

Yow! I did not know who Nick Cannon was! What a dolt. Individual people can be louts, regardless of race.

Farrakhan apparently belongs to a similar religious wing as did Malcolm X. In the biopic about Malcolm, he does go through a phase where he is taught that all white people, no matter how nice they may seem to be, are the devil. A white girl asks him what someone like her can do to help black people. He famously replies "nothing". Less famous is he later stated he regretted saying that and had evolving views of others. At least that is what Spike Lee's movie portrays. I do not know Farrakhan ever had that evolution.
I don't know who Professor Gtiff is (Griff?) Reviewing... EDIT. Oh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Griff

Malcolm X's change of heart is only less famous because people and certain history ciriculums have a harder time sanitizing him like they do with MLK. I am thankful I grew up in a house with his biography on the shelf and the biopic is one of Lee's best films.

As for Farrakhan...fuck em.

 

[ObsidianJones]

You said
> "When we call for safety of women in campuses, we do not say "Wait, wait. Can we talk to the men first and go through lengthy psychology sessions to solve their root issue that causes these rapes?""
Then I said:
> "Isn't that exactly what "Teach men not to rape" is about?" and posted that picture.
Then you said:
> "Telling women not to get raped is shifting the blame."
And there's where the communication breakdown happened. I never said anything about "telling women not to get raped", so I was confused as to why you would bring that up. So then I said:
> " I never said anything about "telling women not to get raped"."
And then you said:
> "The picture you chose had that right on the front. "Teach 'Don't Rape', not 'Don't Get Raped'""
To which I said:
> "That's the exact opposite of "telling women not to get raped", isn't it?"

And now we're here.

I just want to know why you accused me of "shifting the blame" and "telling women not to get raped", because I never said anything like that. I think you misread something. So please, if you want this resolved, just answer the question. Why did you accuse me of "shifting the blame" and "telling women not to get raped". That's not something I've ever said. That's not what the sign in the picture says. I don't know where you got that from, so please, tell me. WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT "TELLING WOMEN NOT TO GET RAPED"?! WHERE DID YOU GET THAT FROM? Please explain.

This is the exact moment where we halt communication indefinitely. You're not here to reason. You're here to argue.

Tell me where I said you said the same. I already stated that I was speaking about what the picture you posted. That's what the picture is stating. Teach men not to rape, don't say don't get raped. I responded to the picture. I never said you created the picture. I never said you countered the picture.

I can not stress enough that I was talking about the picture itself. I already stated that I know you didn't create the picture. And that I was responding solely about the picture.

I don't think this guy is talking about the KKK. Nor is the BLM web page.
@ around 18 minutes. And I think he continues tripling down.
We can find the homicide stats I list completely fake. At that point, I do not know how we believe anything. Any number. Anywhere. Assuming those numbers are real, we can extrapolate things from them. There is a problem in the Black community that should be addressed. Fair things should be implemented that can result in a more jsut society.
I am glad you would fight a black supremacist group. I think that was what Terry Crews was talking about.

This is the flip side of that.


And if we check Wilmington Police Department Manual, we see their mission statement.

"As a Law Enforcement Officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional rights of all individuals to liberty, equality and justice.

I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn, or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official life, I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.

I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities.

I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the police service. I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God (or deity of choice) to my chosen profession - law enforcement."

In fact, if you google that wonderful thought, you'd find that it's common place to most Police Mission Statements. Why? Because it was accepted in 1957 by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. as, in their words: "preface to the mission and commitment law enforcement agencies make to the public they serve."

Any police brutality thing I can bring up sullies this. Any sexual infraction ruins it. Any cop on the take, planting evidence, Bribery destroys this.

And if we tried to do shot for shot, I'm very sure I will not even scratch the surface of officers who violated this international mission statement before you run out of black lives matter activists like the person you just posted.

It simply can not be that one commenter you find invalidates Black Lives Matter mission, and hundreds of thousands of cops who tarnish their own mission statement are just a lot of bad apples. Either it applies to every human organization, or none.

And yes, this gets to the core of "If we don't believe in this, what do we believe in". It might be comforting to believe in a benevolence police force. And there are so many good cops out there struggling to make due. I'll never besmirch their efforts. But I realize their efforts can not indemnify the police force entire to people who have suffered under police rule, just as the good efforts of people in the black community can erase actual crimes like what happens in Chicago and Baltimore.

Again, I don't believe Blacks are guiltless, put-upon saints. They are humans, therefore each individual has the same capacity for good or evil as any other. Same as police. But I will not intrinsically believe either. And I especially won't believe in what either side tells me the other side did since they are often put against one another. Whenever I mention a stat, it comes from an independent source, or it's referencing an independent study. And even those will be marred because they normally hinge on proper police categorizing.

If you want to get into nuance, it's always a two line street. Sure, let's get into how we can help the black community. I obviously have a vested interest in that. But also, we have to get into the long and dirty history of policing at some time. But the issue with that is that a lot of people really want to say "not now", "not now", "not now", "this again, do you ever talk about anything else?!", and then when it eventually blows up because people can only be ignored for so long:

"Jeez, why can't we just talk about this before you take it to these extremes?!"

 

[Houseman]

I can not stress enough that I was talking about the picture itself.

The sign says:

Teach "DON'T RAPE", not "DON'T GET RAPED!"

So I am still completely baffled as to how you came to the conclusion that the sign is "shifting the blame" and "telling women not to get raped"
How is this sign doing either of those things? Please explain.

That's all I want. You can put me on your ignore list forever, but first, just please explain how you came to the conclusion that the sign is doing either of those things.

Is there anyone reading this that agrees with Obsidian's conclusion that the sign is "shifting the blame" or "telling women not to get raped"? Please chime in and explain this to me, because I, for the life of me, cannot figure it out.

 

[gorfias]

This is the exact moment where we halt communication indefinitely. You're not here to reason. You're here to argue.



I can not stress enough that I was talking about the picture itself. I already stated that I know you didn't create the picture. And that I was responding solely about the picture.



This is the flip side of that.


And if we check Wilmington Police Department Manual, we see their mission statement.



In fact, if you google that wonderful thought, you'd find that it's common place to most Police Mission Statements. Why? Because it was accepted in 1957 by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. as, in their words: "preface to the mission and commitment law enforcement agencies make to the public they serve."

Any police brutality thing I can bring up sullies this. Any sexual infraction ruins it. Any cop on the take, planting evidence, Bribery destroys this.

And if we tried to do shot for shot, I'm very sure I will not even scratch the surface of officers who violated this international mission statement before you run out of black lives matter activists like the person you just posted.

It simply can not be that one commenter you find invalidates Black Lives Matter mission, and hundreds of thousands of cops who tarnish their own mission statement are just a lot of bad apples. Either it applies to every human organization, or none.

And yes, this gets to the core of "If we don't believe in this, what do we believe in". It might be comforting to believe in a benevolence police force. And there are so many good cops out there struggling to make due. I'll never besmirch their efforts. But I realize their efforts can not indemnify the police force entire to people who have suffered under police rule, just as the good efforts of people in the black community can erase actual crimes like what happens in Chicago and Baltimore.

Again, I don't believe Blacks are guiltless, put-upon saints. They are humans, therefore each individual has the same capacity for good or evil as any other. Same as police. But I will not intrinsically believe either. And I especially won't believe in what either side tells me the other side did since they are often put against one another. Whenever I mention a stat, it comes from an independent source, or it's referencing an independent study. And even those will be marred because they normally hinge on proper police categorizing.

If you want to get into nuance, it's always a two line street. Sure, let's get into how we can help the black community. I obviously have a vested interest in that. But also, we have to get into the long and dirty history of policing at some time. But the issue with that is that a lot of people really want to say "not now", "not now", "not now", "this again, do you ever talk about anything else?!", and then when it eventually blows up because people can only be ignored for so long:

"Jeez, why can't we just talk about this before you take it to these extremes?!"

No doubt. I keep writing that people of all races have been wronged by the police. That's why BLM seems polarizing. I don't doubt many, even most people with BLM think they have a special, race based problem with the police. I do not think they do but from what I am reading/hearing of the founders of the BLM movement; black lives is NOT what they care about in the first place. The whole point IS the polarization.

This thread asks if there's something wrong with the statement, "All Lives Matter". Not only is there nothing wrong with it, it is push back against division and polarization. We should all welcome the statement.