Carborendum

Faked Protests

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

A pallet of bricks showed up in the middle of our historic downtown yesterday.  My husband's route home from work go through that street.  Cops showed up and tried to stop anybody from going near the pallet until they can figure out what to do with it causing my husband to not get home until past 9PM.

 I’ll admit, it is curious 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of protests, I just emerged from a Twitter rabbit hole that led me to this. I had never heard of it before (I was 7 when it happened). Between this story that sounds like something from the 1950s, not the 90s, and seeing 57 riot police in Buffalo resign in solidarity with two officers who shoved a 75 year-old man (who fell and started bleeding from his head), I'm really having a hard time believing that good cops are the majority. 

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/rudys-racist-rants-nypd-history-lesson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Godless said:

Speaking of protests, I just emerged from a Twitter rabbit hole that led me to this. I had never heard of it before (I was 7 when it happened). Between this story that sounds like something from the 1950s, not the 90s, and seeing 57 riot police in Buffalo resign in solidarity with two officers who shoved a 75 year-old man (who fell and started bleeding from his head), I'm really having a hard time believing that good cops are the majority. 

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/rudys-racist-rants-nypd-history-lesson

The Buffalo thing doesn’t necessarily mean the resigning cops agree with the two who were suspended.  Apparently the city has already refused to provide legal defense for other members of the riot squad, and the union recently told them that they wouldn’t be able to fund their defense either.  See https://www.wkbw.com/news/local-news/exclusive-two-buffalo-police-ert-members-say-resignation-was-not-in-solidarity-with-suspended-officers.

Riot squads, by their nature, get into physical confrontations, which means someone gets hurt, which means cops get sued.  If your city and your union don’t have your back, then volunteering for riot squad duty is just plain stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Godless said:

Speaking of protests, I just emerged from a Twitter rabbit hole that led me to this. I had never heard of it before (I was 7 when it happened). Between this story that sounds like something from the 1950s, not the 90s, and seeing 57 riot police in Buffalo resign in solidarity with two officers who shoved a 75 year-old man (who fell and started bleeding from his head), I'm really having a hard time believing that good cops are the majority. 

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/rudys-racist-rants-nypd-history-lesson

NOTE: I don't know if the police were justified or not.  I don't know if they truly were peaceful or violent.  I don't know a lot of things about this situation.  But that's the point. This article did nothing to actually inform the reader about what really happened.  It was a lot of rhetoric that made the reader "feel" angry about what happened.  But in the end, we don't really know what happened.  Maybe you're right.  Maybe you're wrong.  But this article doesn't help.

I've just spent some time reading a whole bunch of articles on the topic.  Here's my take.

Typical hit piece.  While the overall story was true (i.e. there was a police demonstration because of a disagreement with the mayor) the words used were purposefully chosen to put it in the worst possible light.  Much of it has the fault of being non-specific while using inflaming words.

"Reporters and innocent bystanders were VIOLENTLY assaulted by the mob"

Some (very few in actual number) people got shoved.  Not even a bruise to show for it.  Notice they don't even report an approximate number of said victims?  No description of the kinds of assault.  No description of any background.

When there is a crowd of 10,000 protesters marching in the same direction, people usually tend to get out of the way.  But reporters don't.

"Thousands of dollars of property damage"

How many?  $2000 is "thousands".  That could be that a few cars got paint scuffed up.  And to put it into the worst possible light, one could say that a simple scuff would require a whole new paint job.  In the meantime, LA riots cause $55 Million in damages.

"Jumping on the cars of trapped terrorized motorists"

Again, how many?  Of the videos I saw on it, one couldn't tell if the cars were even occupied. And the so called "jumping" gives the impression that people got on the cars and started jumping up and down to do the most possible damage and basically riot.  No, it is just that there were so many people in the demonstration that walking between cars was difficult, so a very small percentage of the demonstrators climbed up, walked over, then climbed back down.  No interviews of any of the motorists were ever performed that I could find (out of a couple dozen articles I read).  How do the reporters know the motorists felt terror?  Most typical New Yorkers, I suspect, would have been thoroughly annoyed.  But "terrorized"?

"Many of the protestors were carrying guns..."

Most police carry guns.  Yes.  And?

"...and openly drinking alcohol."

Unfortunately, not a lot of NYPD are LDS.  "Many" may have had a single beer in hand.  Yup, let's outlaw beer.  Latter-day Saints would have no problem with that.  You can't

******************************

That was just the first paragraph.  In essence, the article really doesn't tell us much about what is actually happening other than "there was an NYPD demonstration against the mayor." 

The protests were because the mayor had consistently sided with suspects in ANY situation between police and suspects.  The final straw was that he wanted to form a civilian review board to oversee the police.  Normally that would be fine.  Police need oversight.  But they already had processes for oversight.  This board was specifically designed to be overly intrusive and had the power to micromanage all the police actions.  When it gets that intrusive, police may as well not have brains.

I do, of course, object to the racially inflammatory language used by several of those who had the bullhorn.  No question about that.   But I'd point out something that flew right over your head.  Most of the NYPD are Democrats.  Most of the hard-core members of the union are hard-core Democrats.  These were the people who were in the protest and spouting off racist rhetoric.

You used this article to point out that police are racist.  But it is NOT used to point out that Democrats are racist.  I don't believe you can have it both ways.

These Police (mostly Democrats) should NOT have been demonstrating against specific actions that government was clearly doing that they directly objected to. 
But these rioters (mostly Democrats) SHOULD be demonstrating against a system -- over a problem that the government was already addressing through already established channels. 
I don't believe you can have it both ways.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

 I’ll admit, it is curious 

FTR, that is really all I said about it.  It really isn't normal to see a pallet of bricks being dropped off in public places where no construction is happening without supervision.

Could there be reasons which are NOT nefarious?  Sure.  But whatever they are, it isn't normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not quite topical, but I’ve been looking for statistics for the past couple days and finally found them:

Blacks made up 27% of arrests in 2016 (https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-racial-disparities/), but 23% of victims of police shootings in 2017 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/).  So police are actually slightly less likely to shoot a suspect if he’s black.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Maybe not quite topical, but I’ve been looking for statistics for the past couple days and finally found them:

Blacks made up 27% of arrests in 2016 (https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-racial-disparities/), but 23% of victims of police shootings in 2017 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/).  So police are actually slightly less likely to shoot a suspect if he’s black.

This has been true for many years now.  I don't remember what year it was.  But there was a huge racial event -- it may have been Rodney King -- which really divided races.  Ever since that event, most police have been more reticent to pull the trigger against a black man precisely because they were afraid of being considered racist.

The fact is that the numbers went the other way prior to that event.  So, this was certainly an improvement.  But it should be obvious that the problem is not as bad as people would have us believe. It is better.  The "systemic" effect is the opposite of what human nature would normally present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, everyone, happy D-day.  And may we be mindful that there are always degenerates out there who will use violence to take or break other people’s stuff and/or make their lives a living hell generally, and justify themselves by saying they are merely remedying decades-old injustices and betrayals.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

"Thousands of dollars of property damage"

How many?  $2000 is "thousands".  That could be that a few cars got paint scuffed up.  And to put it into the worst possible light, one could say that a simple scuff would require a whole new paint job.  In the meantime, LA riots cause $55 Million in damages.

I had to chuckle at this.  Colorado Springs had 2 days of riots, then the mayor got in front of the media and tallied the damage done (Armored vehicle window damage, $5 grand.  Police cruiser damage, $750.  Windows and disaster cleanup, $1500. Graffiti removal, $750, etc.).  He noted this would all be paid for out of taxpayer dollars.  So we got a curfew, and 40-ish people went to jail, and everything has mostly died down now.

Yes, again, (and again, in response to something Godless has posted), words mean things.  And to point out again, we've all become accustomed to word-inflation from the media, sensationalism and clickbaiting soundbytes to forward an agenda.  And again (this time talking directly to Godless, because I know he's smarter than this), it's on the reasonable people of the world to make sure their discourse is clarifying and making things better, not confusing things and making them worse, as we go around discussing issues and trying to find solutions.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Carborendum said:

NOTE: I don't know if the police were justified or not.  I don't know if they truly were peaceful or violent.  I don't know a lot of things about this situation.  But that's the point. This article did nothing to actually inform the reader about what really happened.  It was a lot of rhetoric that made the reader "feel" angry about what happened.  But in the end, we don't really know what happened.  Maybe you're right.  Maybe you're wrong.  But this article doesn't help.

I chose my source carefully. Cato isn't exactly a bastion of liberal sensationalism. I appreciate you doing some follow-up research though. Even if the disorderly conduct was overblown, I'd say that disorderly conduct of any sort among a group of law enforcement officers is unacceptable. It's one of those professions that should have almost no room for moral error.

13 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I do, of course, object to the racially inflammatory language used by several of those who had the bullhorn.  No question about that.   But I'd point out something that flew right over your head.  Most of the NYPD are Democrats.  Most of the hard-core members of the union are hard-core Democrats.  These were the people who were in the protest and spouting off racist rhetoric.

You used this article to point out that police are racist.  But it is NOT used to point out that Democrats are racist.  I don't believe you can have it both ways.

These Police (mostly Democrats) should NOT have been demonstrating against specific actions that government was clearly doing that they directly objected to. 
But these rioters (mostly Democrats) SHOULD be demonstrating against a system -- over a problem that the government was already addressing through already established channels. 
I don't believe you can have it both ways.

It "flew over my head" because I don't particularly care who racists vote for. And yes, I'm aware that there are quite a few closet (and maybe some not-so-closet) racists in the Democratic old guard. "Stop & Frisk" was Bloomberg'a baby, after all.

That said, your claim about NYPD is eyebrow-raising, and I'm curious what your source is. Again, it doesn't change my view of those cops even remotely. 

 

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Maybe not quite topical, but I’ve been looking for statistics for the past couple days and finally found them:

Blacks made up 27% of arrests in 2016 (https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-racial-disparities/), but 23% of victims of police shootings in 2017 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/).  So police are actually slightly less likely to shoot a suspect if he’s black.

Black people are 13-15% of the US population, to put those numbers in perpective.

The big problem in the "racist cops" discussion is that it goes deeper than killing. I tried without success to find some statistics for arrests by race that don't result in charges. The one relevant arrest statistic I could find is that black people are twice as likely than whites to be arrested on minor drug charges, despite similar usage rates. And I know there are virtually no reliable statistics of any sort for excessive use of force or what some might call "harassment", defined as questioning an individual without cause or intent to arrest. That's why, when it comes to police interaction with the black community, anecdotal evidence should be taken into consideration. I know it has its problems, but black people have an alarming number of stories to tell about things that rarely happen to white people. Statistics won't tell those stories. That's why when white people ask what they can do to help, the overwhelming response is simply to listen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Godless I appreciate you posting on this issue. I am one who truly does not see that police brutality is the biggest issue with black Americans. I know that that fact probably marks me as racist (I've been equated with it when I was upset by the rioting and looting, regardless that I was also upset by what happened to Mr. Floyd) but, since the word racist doesn't mean what it actually means, I'm not sure how valid that accusation is anymore. Anyway, I want to understand why this is the biggest issue and not other things. One can't say it's because I'm not black as other non-blacks seem to understand this. So, I appreciate you providing your perspective. I find that this topic (especially right now) is so emotionally charged that most people can't speak or listen rationally (I include myself in this statement). I appreciate the ability to have such a discussion on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Godless said:

I chose my source carefully. Cato isn't exactly a bastion of liberal sensationalism.

Sometimes it is. Remember that Cato is not Conservative either.  It is libertarian.  And while they have their conservative and liberal wings, they are first and foremost very negative when it comes to government (incl police).  In this case, I believe I showed that it was more sensationalism than facts.

Quote

I appreciate you doing some follow-up research though. Even if the disorderly conduct was overblown, I'd say that disorderly conduct of any sort among a group of law enforcement officers is unacceptable. It's one of those professions that should have almost no room for moral error.

Then you'll be looking a long time. 

Quote

It "flew over my head" because I don't particularly care who racists vote for.

So, you don't blame Trump for this?  Most liberals do.

The reason I brought it up is that you can't laugh at honor and be shocked to find traitors in your midst.

Quote

And yes, I'm aware that there are quite a few closet (and maybe some not-so-closet) racists in the Democratic old guard. "Stop & Frisk" was Bloomberg'a baby, after all.

It doesn't occur to you that the very basis of the Democrat platform is for us to consider race before we make any decisions about a person?  You may think that means we're supposed to be nicer to minorities, but that isn't how the human mind works.

Quote

That said, your claim about NYPD is eyebrow-raising, and I'm curious what your source is.

https://www.nycpba.org/press-releases/2018/pba-endorsements/ See below:  Only one republican endorsement out of 16.  Every endorsement is approved by the executives as well as the membership at large.

Quote

The union, which represents nearly 50,000 active and retired police officers, has endorsed the following primary candidates:

  • Assembly Member Brian Barnwell - 30th Assembly District - Democratic Primary
  • Assembly Member Aridia Espinal - 39th Assembly District - Democratic Primary
  • Ethan Lustig-Elgrably - 46th Assembly District - Democratic Primary
  • Charles Fall - 61st Assembly District - Democratic Primary
  • Mike Reilly - 62nd Assembly District - Republican Primary
  • Assembly Member Robert Rodriguez - 68th Assembly District - Democratic Primary
  • Senator Tony Avella - 11th Senate District - Democratic Primary
  • Senator Jose Peralta - 13th Senate District - Democratic Primary
  • Senator Simcha Felder - 17th Senate District - Democratic Primary
  • Senator Martin Dilan - 18th Senate District - Democratic Primary
  • Senator Jesse Hamilton - 20th Senate District - Democratic Primary
  • Senator Diane Savino - 23rd Senate District - Democratic Primary
  • Senator Marisol Alcantara - 31st Senate District - Democratic Primary
  • Senator Jeffrey Klein - 34th Senate District - Democratic Primary
  • Senator David Carlucci - 38th Senate District - Democratic Primary
  • Senator Tim Kennedy - 63rd Senate District - Democratic Primary
Quote

Again, it doesn't change my view of those cops even remotely. 

Based on this statement and the ones preceeding, I'm finding it difficult to find any other conclusion than: You believe most of the racists in the Democrat party are the police and other government officials.  I would agree in part.  I think that it is impossible to be a Democrat and not be racist.  It is the party platform to have race be a big issue.  Any intersectionality be an issue.  If you aren't aware of it, then you can't be a Democrat -- so says the cancel culture.

Quote

Black people are 13-15% of the US population, to put those numbers in perpective.

I'm aware.  What perspective am I supposed to get from it?

Quote

The big problem in the "racist cops" discussion is that it goes deeper than killing. I tried without success to find some statistics for arrests by race that don't result in charges. The one relevant arrest statistic I could find is that black people are twice as likely than whites to be arrested on minor drug charges, despite similar usage rates. And I know there are virtually no reliable statistics of any sort for excessive use of force or what some might call "harassment", defined as questioning an individual without cause or intent to arrest. That's why, when it comes to police interaction with the black community, anecdotal evidence should be taken into consideration. I know it has its problems, but black people have an alarming number of stories to tell about things that rarely happen to white people. Statistics won't tell those stories. That's why when white people ask what they can do to help, the overwhelming response is simply to listen. 

We may not have those statistics.  But we do have other statistics that are in direct contradiction to the assumptions that you've made here.  We've already discussed those on this and other recent threads.  I'm not going to go over them again.  You probably just disbelieve them anyway.  Confirmation bias.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all the supposedly bad stuff can be blamed on racism, and NOT on the destruction of the families of black people, then what would you say about:

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14911/scandinavia-crime

And Scandanavia is supposed to be the Liberal/socialist model for the world.  Is this also not about racism?  

If you believe the Gates Institute is too conservative, then what about Wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Sweden

Why were such statistics requests denied?  Could there be an agenda?

And just to disillusion the Scandanavian myths:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/05/scandinavian-miracle-denmark-finland-iceland-norway-sweden

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Sometimes it is. Remember that Cato is not Conservative either.  It is libertarian.  And while they have their conservative and liberal wings, they are first and foremost very negative when it comes to government (incl police).  In this case, I believe I showed that it was more sensationalism than facts.

Fair enough.

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, you don't blame Trump for this?  Most liberals do.

No. Racist Dems were racist long before Trump, and Trump himself used to be a Democrat. I'm only a Democrat because I don't believe in backing unviable third parties. 

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It doesn't occur to you that the very basis of the Democrat platform is for us to consider race before we make any decisions about a person?  You may think that means we're supposed to be nicer to minorities, but that isn't how the human mind works.

It's either that or the GOP "I don't see race" nonsense. Both stances are flawed, but at least the Dems acknowledge that the experience of being black in America generally differs from the white experience. I won't deny that Dems sometimes invent racial tension, but that doesn't mean that real racial issues don't exist.

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

https://www.nycpba.org/press-releases/2018/pba-endorsements/ See below:  Only one republican endorsement out of 16.  Every endorsement is approved by the executives as well as the membership at large.

Thank you for that. I wouldn't have known where to begin to look.

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Based on this statement and the ones preceeding, I'm finding it difficult to find any other conclusion than: You believe most of the racists in the Democrat party are the police and other government officials.  I would agree in part.  I think that it is impossible to be a Democrat and not be racist.  It is the party platform to have race be a big issue.  Any intersectionality be an issue.  If you aren't aware of it, then you can't be a Democrat -- so says the cancel culture.

I only have slightly more love for the Dems than I do for the GOP. Lesser evils and what-not. And I hate cancel culture, as does a recent Democratic president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beefche said:

@Godless I appreciate you posting on this issue. I am one who truly does not see that police brutality is the biggest issue with black Americans. I know that that fact probably marks me as racist (I've been equated with it when I was upset by the rioting and looting, regardless that I was also upset by what happened to Mr. Floyd) but, since the word racist doesn't mean what it actually means, I'm not sure how valid that accusation is anymore. Anyway, I want to understand why this is the biggest issue and not other things. One can't say it's because I'm not black as other non-blacks seem to understand this. So, I appreciate you providing your perspective. I find that this topic (especially right now) is so emotionally charged that most people can't speak or listen rationally (I include myself in this statement). I appreciate the ability to have such a discussion on this forum.

I could never think of you as racist. I know you have a very good heart, and I don't doubt that most others here do as well.

First, disparity of justice. When conversations come up about the problems facing black Americans, a lot of people like to talk about "black-on-black" crime. More black people are killed by other black people than by white cops, it's true. But how many black murderers are in prison? How many white cops are in prison for wrongfully killing a black person? Off the top of my head, I can tell you that Eric Garners's killer was fired, but never indicted, and Philando Castile's killer was acquitted. Not cop-related, but Armaud Arbery's killers weren't arrested until public outcry put pressure on local LO nearly 3 months after his death. Meanwhile, around the same time, a black man fired at (and missed) someone intruding into his home and was arrested for it the same day. I tried digging that story back up for updates, but all relevant search terms lead back to Arbery. One has to wonder if George Floyd's killer would have ever been arrested if there hadn't been any public outcry, or if qualified immunity would have protected him. 

I would encourage you to read up on redlining. It's the discriminatory mortgage-lending practice that ensured that the suburbs stayed white and the inner cities stayed black in post-Depression America. Without white interests in the cities, residents and communities were forgotten by their local budget committees, and that resulted in generational poverty that still affects many inner city black communities today.

Edited by Godless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Godless said:

It's either that or the GOP "I don't see race" nonsense.

When I was growing up (in leftist Washington State), the public schools thoroughly indoctrinated me and my classmates with the idea of "colorblindness". Color should never be used in making judgments about people or policy. I bought it, ate it up hook, line, and sinker.

Was that the Republicans' fault?

So as a middle-aged adult, I think that personal and policy judgments and decisions should never be made based on skin color or race.

Now here you are, lecturing and finger-wagging about such "nonsense".

News flash, Godless: Doing things your way means that you deeply, truly, sincerely believe that Lady Liberty should be peeking over her blindfold and passing judgment based on race. And if you believe that, you are the enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Vort said:

When I was growing up (in leftist Washington State), the public schools thoroughly indoctrinated me and my classmates with the idea of "colorblindness". Color should never be used in making judgments about people or policy. I bought it, ate it up hook, line, and sinker.

Was that the Republicans' fault?

So as a middle-aged adult, I think that personal and policy judgments and decisions should never be made based on skin color or race.

Now here you are, lecturing and finger-wagging about such "nonsense".

Yes, "colorblindness" has historically been just as much a liberal idea as a conservative one. The black community has recently started to push back on it. The problem is that such thinking has convinced people that racism doesn't exist, that they were taught to treat people as equals by a sytem that doesn't practice what it preaches. Yes, we need to see and treat people equally, but we will never be able to do that so long as we ignore the inequalities that permeate our society. And you won't see those inequalities unless you "see race". And it goes well beyond the justice system. I'm sure you heard the recent story of Amy Cooper in NYC, the lady who called the police on a black man in Central Park after he pointed out that her dog should be on a leash. It's absolutely insane how many stories like that are out there, and it's all bred from white knowledge that black people fear the police. They weaponize that fear. How many times have you been walking around a department store or an outlet store at the mall and noticed that an employee is following you and watching you very closely, but not asking if you need help? How many times have you had the police called on you for walking into your own house because a neighbor thought you were breaking and entering? As I said, black people just want you to hear their stories. They're not asking for special or different treatment. They just want to be treated like their white counterparts, and they want you to recognize that that currently isn't happening.

5 hours ago, Vort said:

News flash, Godless: Doing things your way means that you deeply, truly, sincerely believe that Lady Liberty should be peeking over her blindfold and passing judgment based on race. 

I'm trying to tell you that she already is, and has been for generations. Maybe not always in ways that will show up on a statistics report, but the experience of being black in this country is fundamentally different from the white experience, generally speaking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2020 at 10:43 PM, Godless said:

No. Racist Dems were racist long before Trump, and Trump himself used to be a Democrat.

I'd agree with that, but... 

Quote

I'm only a Democrat because I don't believe in backing unviable third parties. 

I can certainly understand that.  Sometimes I feel the same way about Republicans.

Quote

It's either that or the GOP "I don't see race" nonsense. Both stances are flawed, but at least the Dems acknowledge that the experience of being black in America generally differs from the white experience. I won't deny that Dems sometimes invent racial tension, but that doesn't mean that real racial issues don't exist.

I don't know if we really "deny" it is different.  It is just that every individual varies just as much as any category differs.  In other words life always gives you difficult things to work with.  And in today's world of affirmative action, opportunities abound for minorities.

I certainly don't deny that racism exists.  But I just see it differently than you do.  Race exists.  That's a simple fact.  Racism exists.  Simple fact.  But if the issue is very complex, then we can't simply boil it down to "Blacks have it worse than everyone else."  That's way too simplistic.

BTW, I was once denied a job because I was Asian.  But I was denied jobs multiple times because I was a "Mormon".

Now that I've admitted racism exists, can you at least admit that the "sellout mentality" also exists?

***************************

I'd really ask you to consider the story of Chris Gardner (Pursuit of Happyness -- Will Smith movie, and autobiographical book).  Chris was asked about the race issue.  Was that an impediment.  He said.

Quote

I don't think it was a black/white issue as much as a "green" issue.  Growing up poor, I didn't have wealthy friends who were the guys who made decisions with large amounts of money.  I didn't go to country clubs.  I didn't collect business cards from powerful people.  I didn't get to have the parties where we mingle and get to know the rich and famous.

But with just one opportunity I was able to make those contacts.  And with that one opportunity, the world was opened up to me.

Here was a man who was flat broke.  In a homeless shelter with a baby (in real life it was a baby that couldn't even walk yet -- the movie used a young Jayden Smith because... movies).  But he didn't ever cry "woe is me".  He simply made it through force of will or he wasn't going to make it.

Now, I'd ask you:  Which is more crippling?  The dearth of the right connections? Or the mentality that the world will never allow me to succeed because I'm being held down by "the man".  I'd argue that the fatalist attitude is what kills opportunity more than having no connections.

I'd also argue that because of this "sellout culture" blacks put more limitations on themselves today than blacks had put on them by society in the 70s (in general. Obviously parts of the country had pockets of "old school" racism that were still pretty bad) back in the 70s.

Quote

I only have slightly more love for the Dems than I do for the GOP. Lesser evils and what-not.

Yup.

Quote

And I hate cancel culture, as does a recent Democratic president.

You know, I really was surprised when he said that.  It was only then that I realized that for all the things he said that inflamed racial tensions, he never actually participated in cancel culture.  I actually got to appreciate that quality about him.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Godless said:

I'm trying to tell you that she already is, and has been for generations. Maybe not always in ways that will show up on a statistics report, but the experience of being black in this country is fundamentally different from the white experience, generally speaking. 

This is the real question, isn't it?

As an atheist, you refuse to believe in God because he is not "provable."  Right?  Then how do you believe in this that is equally unprovable? (doesn't show up in statistics).

I do admit that being of any race is fundamentally different in two different ways:

  • The ways you speak of are so small and infrequent that it simply cannot be justifiably called "systemic".  They simply don't happen that often.  Notice that is not a denial it happens.  But a disagrement on the level and frequency.
  • The  ways conservatives tend to speak of it are much more common and can be considered systemic.  And they are more easily addressed from an internal approach rather than an external approach.  This comes from the mentality that
    • Man tries to take the poor man out of the gutter, and he goes right back in.
    • Christ takes the gutter out of the man, and he takes himself out of the gutter.
    • The liberal approach is to tell the black man that there's nothing wrong with having the gutter inside you, others need to keep telling you it is ok.  Then they wonder why they never get out of the gutter.

I've actually seen these scenarios play out far too often when I work with the poor.  And it isn't just black people.  I've worked with plenty of poor white people.  And there really is not much difference in the mentality between black and white when it comes to the "poor" mentality.

It is not that "bad things happened to them".  Bad things happen to everyone.  Granted, some worse than others.  But the fact is that "the middle class mentality" will tend to bounce back more easily from "bad things" than "poor" mentality no matter how "bad" those things are.  And I've seen very bad things happen to both black and white, poor and middle class.  And the class and race had nothing to do with who bounced back and who didn't.  The one quality that came close to being a constant was the mentality that got them through it; not just to survive, but to thrive; not in spite of the trial, but because of the trial.

The "sellout" mentality is the "gutter in the man" in the black community.  The white community's gutter is "woe is me".  They are both about the same, but just a different take and supposedly different reasons.  But knowing people's stories by working with them for months at a time,  it is all about "I can't do it."  Both are just as debilitating when it comes to facing trials.  Middle class mentality is "I have to do it.

For wealthy, I have to create two mentalities: 

  • If you were born into a wealthy family, sometimes you can have the middle class mentality of "I have to do it."  They're afraid of losing what they have just as much as the middle class person.
  • Some who were born into it, and most people who achieved wealth have the mentality of "I'm going to do it."  And regardless of the obstacles, they make it happen.  It may take time.  But they believe time is on their side.  Always.

I can't do it.

I have to do it.

I'm going to do it.

Change the mentality and they will change their condition themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Godless said:

I could never think of you as racist. I know you have a very good heart, and I don't doubt that most others here do as well.

First, disparity of justice. When conversations come up about the problems facing black Americans, a lot of people like to talk about "black-on-black" crime. More black people are killed by other black people than by white cops, it's true. But how many black murderers are in prison? How many white cops are in prison for wrongfully killing a black person? Off the top of my head, I can tell you that Eric Garners's killer was fired, but never indicted, and Philando Castile's killer was acquitted. Not cop-related, but Armaud Arbery's killers weren't arrested until public outcry put pressure on local LO nearly 3 months after his death. Meanwhile, around the same time, a black man fired at (and missed) someone intruding into his home and was arrested for it the same day. I tried digging that story back up for updates, but all relevant search terms lead back to Arbery. One has to wonder if George Floyd's killer would have ever been arrested if there hadn't been any public outcry, or if qualified immunity would have protected him. 

I would encourage you to read up on redlining. It's the discriminatory mortgage-lending practice that ensured that the suburbs stayed white and the inner cities stayed black in post-Depression America. Without white interests in the cities, residents and communities were forgotten by their local budget committees, and that resulted in generational poverty that still affects many inner city black communities today.

This brings up the REAL problem I think that is out there, but which the riots and protests are not actually bringing to light.  In fact, by focusing on racism they are sidelining or distracting from what the actual issues are, or the root causes of the issues which enable the racism to occur in the first place.  They are calling about racism, but  all of this is enabled by a simple principle that the US uses which other nations do not.

In many states the Police have a different set of Laws that those that apply to the rest of the population.  The can get away with breaking many laws "in pursuit of their duties" that the normal citizen is not allowed to break.

I defend the Police and what they have to do in many instances, and I think we should support those that keep order in our communities. 

There are differences between what the Police can do in the US vs. what they can do in other nations.  When you have two sets of laws, one that apply to the citizens of a nation, and the other to a group of elites (or in this case, police) you will get abuses of those laws.

The easiest thing to do in some of these states is to make it so a majority of the laws apply to police along with anyone else.  These laws may vary by state to state, depending on the state laws.

For example, in California, there is NO justified shooting allowed.  You cannot shoot someone unless they shoot at you first, OR actively attack you with a weapon in an attempt to injure or kill you (thus, it falls under actual self defense).  Even then, you STILL will probably get a court to decide in jury trial whether it was actual self defense or not.  This would make police in California much more cautious in their usage of firearms around others.

On the otherhand, self-defense laws are not quite as self-inhibiting in more conservative states, but it would probably add to more restraint and the usage of de-escalation measures more. 

Other items could include that they cannot seize property, even if it was in use of a crime, to resale.  That would constitute theft in it's application, just as it would by anyone else seizing property that was not theirs.  They could use it as evidence, but unless it was illegal (such as heroin) it would HAVE to be returned to those it was owned by or their relatives (if that individual was imprisoned and unable to take repossession of it).  Laws that allow resale of property involved in a crime are abused in almost every state it is utilized in from what I've seen.

If you make it so police have to be more cognizant of the laws and realize they are also civilians, just like all the rest of the citizens, it does a lot to demilitarize the police (which is another thing I've seen recently, the militarization of the police should trouble many) and put them on a ground more equal to those that they should be serving, rather than those they see as civilians rather than part of the blue community.

In this instance, it is NOT racism that I see as causing problems, but those bad few that abuse the privileges that have been granted to police departments, and at times allow them to BE racist in enforcing the laws by abusing those powers, rather than strictly it being a racism vs. non-racism of police in general.  I do not think most police are racist, but for the few that are, the difference in power and law allow them to show this more than if the laws were more evenly applicable to all (including those in the police force).

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Carborendum how do you know you didn't get the jobs because you were Asian or LDS? Did they actually tell you that? Because that's against the law and even most companies own guidelines. So, I'm really curious how people know they were denied things based on a protected class.

In the office I worked in, there was a black lady (good friend of mine) who was a supervisor. We had a newer employee who did good work but it just wasn't working out for him on the team he was on. I spoke with him privately about the issues (I was his coach/mentor) and encouraged him to seek a position on my friend's team. I honestly believed he would be very successful on that team. He prevaricated, never really stating if he didn't want to be on the team or wasn't interested in the position. I spoke with him on at least 3 occasions within a 2 wk or so time period. When I spoke to my friend about it, she said that he didn't want to be on her team because she was black. I was absolutely shocked. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING in my conversation with him indicated that he had an issue with ANYONE on that team. He kept talking about the work and if he would be capable of it, he liked what he was doing, etc. Because she was my friend, I told her that I thought she was wrong. And I asked her what was it that he did to make her think that? She said, she just knows because it's her experience as a black woman. I asked pertinent questions to figure out if he said or even looked at her in a questionable manner. Nope, just that he put off some kind of vibe or energy or something that as a black woman she had experienced before. Well, about a week later, he turned in his notice. He found a job that paid better and was closer to his home. So, that energy or vibe? Yeah, nothing more than he didn't want to give his hand away about getting a new job. When I said something to my friend about it, she just shrugged and insisted that there was still some amount of reluctance on his part due to her race. 

This story reminds me that we seem to assume so much about others without any real evidence. I remember once being in Sunday School and having to leave the meeting a little early for a calling I had. The next Sunday, the teacher approached me and apologized for offending me. I had no idea what he was talking about. He said he was talking about single people in the church during that class and I ended up walking away. He assumed he had offended me since I was an older than normal single woman. Well, he forced me to admit that I wasn't even paying attention to his lesson and that in fact, my mind was on what I needed to do that prompted me to leave early. 

I'm not denying that racism exists. Of course it does. And it exists in every country, every culture, every community. It will never go away until our Lord returns. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to overcome it, but I just wonder how much is assumed when the evidence isn't there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Godless said:

Black people are 13-15% of the US population, to put those numbers in perpective.

The big problem in the "racist cops" discussion is that it goes deeper than killing. I tried without success to find some statistics for arrests by race that don't result in charges. The one relevant arrest statistic I could find is that black people are twice as likely than whites to be arrested on minor drug charges, despite similar usage rates. And I know there are virtually no reliable statistics of any sort for excessive use of force or what some might call "harassment", defined as questioning an individual without cause or intent to arrest. That's why, when it comes to police interaction with the black community, anecdotal evidence should be taken into consideration. I know it has its problems, but black people have an alarming number of stories to tell about things that rarely happen to white people. Statistics won't tell those stories. That's why when white people ask what they can do to help, the overwhelming response is simply to listen. 

Agreed, to a point.  The Washington Post has an article from the last couple of years with a lot of troubling statistics.  I think there are explanations for a lot of them that are less rooted in race *per se* than in culture or economic class.  Others, though, seem to indicate problems that can’t be explained any other way—and they become even more perplexing because the groups most responsible for the problems are the groups most vocally in favor of solving them (state judges and lawyers [who are overwhelmingly leftists] and big-city mayors and councilmen and police chiefs and bureaucrats [ditto]).

I think probably the biggest struggles we have are 1) as @prisonchaplain used to say, power can corrupt—and law enforcement officers by nature of their jobs are inherently powerful, so at least a few are inevitably going to yield to their baser instincts no matter how nobly they start out; and 2) being a policeman frankly sucks, and a lot of those guys are probably dealing with PTSD, and maybe we shouldn’t expect *anyone* to do what cops do for more than 20-30 hours a week, let alone 40-50 hours.

And the simple fact is that when we’re trying to change the status quo—it doesn’t help to flat-out lie about the racial identities of the people getting killed by cops (which BLM does routinely) or to try to re-characterize purely defensive cop shootings as some sort of unwarranted police aggression (the account of Michael Brown crying “hands up, don’t shoot!” was a lie.  Forensics proved it was a lie.  But BLM still paints Brown as a martyr.  Ditto for that goon Trayvon Martin, who—the evidence showed—set up an ambush for Zimmerman from which Zimmerman barely escaped with his life).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My poor anarchist buddy already has this whole situation already charted out, having experienced it over and over again across the decades.  He had the script down in 2013.  Keep in mind this roadmap is from the point of view of a radical:

 

Image may contain: text that says 'Jun 6, 2013 New York, New York Inciting incident: Protests break out after the umpteenth outrageous move on the part of government/capital Plot point 1: Following police brutality against demonstrably peaceful gathering, the protest explodes size and scope First culmination: Expressions of sympathy pour in from intellectuals, artists, even some politicians Midpoint: Mass arrests, repression; government reaffirms its resolve not cave to these radicals Plot point 2: Protest splits into reformist and radical elements Climax: Government makes some minor, mostly symbolic concession Denouement: Reformists declare victory and immediately betray radicals'

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, beefche said:

@Carborendum how do you know you didn't get the jobs because you were Asian or LDS? Did they actually tell you that?

The one I didn't get because I was Asian was before such laws were in place.  The interviewer took one look at me and questioned my name because it was a German name.  How could I have such a name and such a face.  When I informed him that I was adopted and that was indeed my name, he abruptly pushed all the papers together and said,"well, it appears we've already filled the position."  Then as I walked out, I heard the name of the guy being called out of the waiting room.  He and I had been speaking for a bit when we learned we were there for the same position.

The LDS ones were a little more subtle.

I was in the interview process when they got to the part in my resume where my education came up (BYU).  I remember two of them clearly.  I don't clearly remember the third one, so I can't tell you the details of that one.  But I remember it being the exact same feeling as the other two.

Essentially, when BYU came up in the discussion people started sounding nervous.  Their eyes literally shifted as if hiding something.  They tripped over words a bit.  Questions were no longer technical, but about how I would get along with people.  Apparently they had forgotten that they already covered that in the first interview. 

You have to understand that in my line of work, they cover everything in the first interview.  If you make it past that, then you're either on a very short list or you're already chosen and it is just a formality for the higher ups to get a look at you.

Why didn't I sue?  I don't care to work with people who don't want to work with me.  I actually support THE RIGHT to be wrong in a free society.  They were definitely wrong. And you know what?  I really was the best for the position.  And if they're going to hold my faith against me, it's their loss.  I did find other jobs.  It didn't hurt me one bit.  But I can tell you that they were worse off for not having hired me.  Who do you think was better off afterward?  Their choices caused their own consequences.

For some reason, people see this as some major affront.  I think it just shows how stupid they are.  They're willing to let someone's religion obscure the professional skills I could have used to help them produce more quality work. If they really want to hold on to bigotry over real, meaningful criteria, they've earned their reward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My recollection is that police are more likely to engage non-whites--and African-Americans, in particular. Part of this skewing may be that predominantly minority neighborhoods are often also low-income/high-crime locales. Thus, police are hyper-vigilant, and quicker to react/respond. However, when it comes to police-involved shootings against perceived assailants, a white person is more likely to be shot. The speculation is that police hesitate more with African-Americans because they know there will be an investigation.

Studies are being done all the time. However, such efforts are fraught with criticism, because advocates on both sides stand ready to pounce on any findings that counter their competing orthodoxies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now