Kevin's Watch

Zarathustra wrote:If you agree that they should be locked up, then why are you worrying about their feelings? Sure, you want to stop the rioting. But is worrying about their feelings the right way to do it? What if I *feel* I deserve your car? Is worrying about my feelings the best way to stop me from taking it? feelings are "justified?" What if I feel like society owes me? What if I see a video of someone else who looks like me getting killed and and that makes me really really mad and so I think that because I have something in common with the person in the video--like we're both bald--that I *feel* like I deserve to take your car? Should you worry about my pain?

This is madness, FF. We don't worrying about the feelings of rioters or car theives.

I keep using the word "prevent". The Watch's Search function says I have used the word 16 times in this thread. I wish I could stamp it on everyone's monitor.
Prevent.
Prevent.
Prevent.
Prevent.
Prevent.
I've said it will happen again, and explained one of big reasons why. Knowing that, we can try to prevent it. Or, we can keep building the anger as much as we can, so that riots are more easily provoked the next time white police kill a black person when there is no danger to anyone. If, between now and the next Chauvin, black Americans see a few million posts on social media and interviews where someone saying something like "It's wrong for white police to kill black people when there is no danger to anyone" is answered with, "It doesn't matter, because black people kill more black people than white police do", then the next Chauvin will be a match to a powder keg.

The anger might be less if the response that people read and hear multiple times every day is along the lines of, "Yes, it is wrong for white police to kill black people when there is no danger to anyone." But that's not an option. Some here will not utter those words, and insist on repeating "It doesn't matter, because black people kill more black people than white police do." Which is true. But the response could be any one of many millions of other facts. The one that is chosen, time after time, exclusively by some, is the one that does NOT in any way invalidate the original statement, but DOES piss people off. And that's the point in saying it.

Sure, put all the rioters in jail. That doesn't prevent (There's that word again. I'm looking toward the future.) the next riot. Putting people in jail for stealing doesn't prevent future theft. Putting people in jail for murder doesn't prevent future murder. Jail is punishment. It is not prevention. Punish the criminals. But if we have a chance of preventing the next such crime, we should try.

Some here might now throw out a token "Yes, it is wrong for white police to kill black people when there is no danger to anyone", then go right back to the other topic of how many black people are killing each other. Pointing out that fact is not a sign of racism. Things that are signs of racism include: Continually trying to change every conversation about white racists into a conversation about what black people are doing wrong; Refusing to acknowledge racism by white people; Refusing to acknowledge the difficulties that black Americans have simply because they are black, and how this might make a person feel.

But, by all means, everybody go back to "The blacks are all killing each other!" It's a good way of trying to prevent the next riot AND it stops black people from killing each other. It's pure genius!

When I see the "blacks are all killing each other" as a statement, I can't help but think of another statement that I hear in real life whenever there is a riot.

"The blacks are acting up again."

ur-Nanothnir wrote:When I see the "blacks are all killing each other" as a statement, I can't help but think of another statement that I hear in real life whenever there is a riot.

"The blacks are acting up again."

You sure do seem to know at of racists.

We all know a lot of racists, sgt. There are racists everywhere. There are even organizations for those who are proud of their racism, the most famous being the Ku Klux Klan. My best guess as to how to interpret your comment is that you do not believe there could be racists in the general population in Nano's vicinity, allowing him to overhear such things. If that's the case, I say it is terribly naive to think he is likely living in a racism-free area. I doubt there are any.

I wouldn't waste my breath debating an ad hominem attack.

wayfriend wrote:I wouldn't waste my breath debating an ad hominem attack.

No... just making them.

FnF you are of course entirely correct. Black on black violence is a completely distinct issue to that of endemic police racism. You are also completely right to highlight that, entirely irrelevant of the fact that black on black violence is apparently more prevalent than endemic police racism (well, if one goes by the bleak stats of body count, it is), pointing at the former in a fit of "whataboutism" to detract from the latter issue would be disingenuous in the extreme.

I still feel that things would be so much less distortable if the BLM movement had called itself something a whole lot more specific and issue-defining... like the EPR movement (End Police Racism), for example. By calling itself the Black Lives Matter movement, it opened the opportunity for issue concatenation - and that really isn't at all helpful to its totally justified core cause. Whether this was intended or not, it has in more than a few ways been counterproductive.

(And as I have said previously, of course black lives matter, because they're just a subset of all lives, and all lives matter).

ur-Nanothnir wrote: Completely false. I frequently see GOP voters call Democrats evil, both on these forums and outside of it. "Demoncrats" is a popular slur used by Republicans. Someone put up a sign near my neighborhood that says "Silly Demoncrats!" I see it all the time on social media. I hear it uttered in real life. Yes, Republicans believe that Democrats are evil incarnate.

Then prove it. Quote people on this forum calling Democrats evil. Post the screen shots of people you see on social media calling Dems evil. If it's happening "all the time," then it should be no problem.

Hillary called Trump voters "deplorables," and many agreed with her. Trump says, "There are fine people on both sides," and the Left erupts in outrage, thinking that it's proof of his racism (i.e. his evil) The Left can't even fathom the possibility that there might be fine people on both sides. It's not in their intellectual capacity.

As TF pointed out, we're not talking about random, nameless people you've seen on social media. We're talking about a mainstream position. The current and the former presidential candidates are about as mainstream and representative as you can get for the Dems. They view themselves as fighting evil deplorables. Nearly every position in the Democratic platform is fighting some perceived enemy within their own country, the opposition party:

Racists
Homophobes
Sexists
Rich people

The Democratic party currently exists for no other reason than to correct society's social injustice. And this injustice is supposedly caused by evil people on the other side. It's all they've got. That's their mission statement. On the other hand, the Right wants a strong defensive (against actual enemies), strong economy, and robust freedoms.

It's funny that you don't even dispute that the Left thinks in terms of moral superiority and Good vs Evil . . . you just say that the other side is equally as bad.

BTW, I've literally never heard of "Demoncrats" until you typed it. So I looked it up. There is a website with this name. After perusing it, I couldn't find a single instance where they called Dems evil. Lots of discussion of the issues and policy, but no discussion of evil. Its mission statement is: "Working Everyday to Expose the Left's Hypocrisy." Not their evil. You'd think that if this word actually meant to imply Dems are evil incarnate, that the very people who adopted it as their own name would have that opinion. But instead of morally superior hyperbole, they have this:

DEMONOCRATS is the platform for conservatism. We work everyday to expose the left’s hypocrisy. We will bring new political issues to light, approach existing topics from a new conservative standpoint, award those on the right championing conservative values, and allow you to vote daily for your most/least favorite people on the right and left.

We look forward to you joining our community!

TheFallen wrote:I still feel that things would be so much less distortable if the BLM movement had called itself something a whole lot more specific and issue-defining... like the EPR movement (End Police Racism), for example. By calling itself the Black Lives Matter movement, it opened the opportunity for issue concatenation - and that really isn't at all helpful to its totally justified core cause.

Yeah, that would be good. Although it wouldn't get as much attention.

TheFallen wrote:Whether this was intended or not, it has in more than a few ways been counterproductive.

Yup.

Zarathustra wrote: The Democratic party currently exists for no other reason than to correct society's social injustice. And this injustice is supposedly caused by evil people on the other side. It's all they've got. That's their mission statement.

You know what would be hysterical??? Working on those things, so the Democrats have NO mission statement! Am I a genius???

But, of course, there ISN'T any social injustice to correct. Or, perhaps, it's not important, because black people kill black people more than white people kill black people.

And yet, despite the smaller number, white police killing black people when nobody was in danger brings about the bigger, more destructive reaction. If it isn't worth speaking out against the initial killing just because it's a bad thing, and it's not worth speaking out against it in order to try to prevent the over-the-top reaction from happening again, then how about speaking out against it because the whole thing makes the US look like idiots to the rest of the world?

I don't know. Running out of ideas. I don't know what would be needed to make some speak out against it.

Yeah, I am not doxxing myself by saying where I am from and posting pictures that could be used to figure out where I live.

Sorry, I don't have to prove shit to you guys.

And it's funny that you guys act like racism doesn't exist where you live. That's a terribly naive and blinkered position to hold, especially those for those of whom live in Texas, which is known for a hate crime where a black man was dragged on a rope by a pickup truck until his fucking head fell off.

When I lived in TX, which wasn't that long ago as I am a fairly young person, it was common for me to hear white people call HIspanics "wetbacks" and "spicks." I didn't hear as many racist things about black people solely because there were very few black people living where I was in the DFW suburbs. I know of one black person in my school, and he was considered a novelty by other students.

I also knew of black siblings who were adopted by a white lady at my church. People would always comment that they "act proper" or "act like white people," their apparent shock implying that black people usually "talk ghetto" or "act like black people." They usually weren't being outright malicious about it (in their minds they were genuinely shocked because it diverged from their schema for "black people") but it did betray some racial prejudices and stereotypes that were hiding just under the surface.

Yes, racism is still a huge issue in the South. Quit acting like butthurt snowflakes whenever someone points this out. I don't have to prove anything to you guys; it's everywhere.

Ur - see i don't hear all that and I live here. So what made racists so comfortable around you that they used that language?

So we have one of two takeaways...

You aren't being honest. (Or you are exaggerating)

Or racists felt so comfortable around you that they just let loose.

My friends aren't racist. Or at least they know not to be around me. Maybe I should grill them?

Again Ur, try facts. Show us the stats that blacks are being killed more by white police officers than they are by other blacks.

Or stop lying. You could try that. See how it feels. You might like it.

Quit moving goalposts/making strawman arguments, Sarge. I never mentioned any of what you just mentioned.

Also, get over it.

sgt.null wrote:Show us the stats that blacks are being killed more by white police officers than they are by other blacks.

First, you guys won't discuss white police killing black people, insisting repeatedly that black people killing black people is the only topic to discuss ... in a thread about racism. "Racially" literally being in the title of the thread.

Now, you're demanding someone who never said white police are killing more black people than black people are show stats proving that claim. Or ... stop lying.

I wonder what the next step away from the topic will be. Demanding a demonstration of an understanding of Advanced Statistics? It fits the pattern perfectly, in that it has something in common with the thing that came before, yet it is actually an entirely different topic from the thing that came before.

I guess the only reasonable response is to demand that you show us the stats that more people prefer Bach to Brahms. Or ... stop lying.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

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

Ms. Lebwohl and I engage in identity politics. We voted to elect a black man as Chair of the Republican Party of Texas (he is now also Leibeschoen's commanding officer, since she is in his regiment) and we will be voting for a Puerto Rican Texan (whose wife is Mexican) for Congress. We had supported our county's Vice Chair of the GOP who was Muslim, until he stepped down so people would quit bitching about him.

I am trying to figure out where the racism in the Republican Party is, because based on direct personal experience I do not see it. The reason I don't see it is because it doesn't exist.

What's funny is that Hashi basically said the Vice-Chair of the GOP stepped down after people were complaining about him being a Muslim.

Such tolerance. Wow.

It's funny that you are having so much trouble finding racism within the GOP when the preceding sentence highlighted a clear case of racism within the GOP, Hashi.

I guess that's what Republicans mean when they say they are color-blind, the emphasis being on "blind."

I can't see it.

ur - your political cartoon. You can't even defend it. Cowardly tactics.

Fist - i was trying g to engage Ur. If you look at the real numbers police are not hunting blacks down.

When there is a bad shooting i have no problem calling for the officer to be charged.

But Democrats start with the idea that every shooting is bad.

Right. Not every shooting is bad. And when it is bad, often, the officer pays the price.

And yet, there are riots. So those two facts aren't preventing riots.

And yet, there are riots. So those two facts aren't preventing riots.

The reasons the riots continue, in spite of those two facts, are not beyond our understanding. We know why it's happening. You and others here will not discuss it. More important, a huge number of Americans, and many politicians, will not discuss it. So it's not going stop.

To each his own, but, imo, standing on whatever high ground you think you are standing on is not of much value when the country is burning around you. Hashi lives in the "real world", which, apparently, I do not. I guess the real world is not being torn apart. The world of rationality is running smoothly, calm and peaceful. Nothing to fix, no need to address issues that people like me are talking about.

Fist - we have discussed it. The riots continue because Democrats allow them to continue. They believe it will hurt Trump in the election.

sgt.null wrote:Fist - we have discussed it. The riots continue because Democrats allow them to continue. They believe it will hurt Trump in the election.

No, that just means you live in a fantasy world.