Black Dog Posted November 27, 2014 Author Report Posted November 27, 2014 I'm just taking your words and carrying them to their logical conclusion. You can't do something as simple as admiring that there is less racism, using all 3 definitions of the word in fact, than at any point in history. I already explained why I think it's a dumb statement. Would you like me to do so again? Quote
Shady Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 Again, just because I don't buy into your chosen social construct, it doesn't mean that I know nothing. Some people are stuck in the 60s. Apparently there are racist policies that still exist today, but don't seem to have an impact on Asians, East Indians, etc. Just African-Americans. I guess the racists are ok with those races or something. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 27, 2014 Author Report Posted November 27, 2014 Some people are stuck in the 60s. Apparently there are racist policies that still exist today, but don't seem to have an impact on Asians, East Indians, etc. Just African-Americans. I guess the racists are ok with those races or something. I don't know what's stupider: the lack of understanding as to why African Americans (many of whom are descendants of actual slaves and for whom segregation and Jim Crow are things of living memory) would have a different experience than groups who came over in numbers within the last few decades or the implication here that those groups don't experience racism, or the implication that black people only have themselves to blame for their problems, which is itself kinda racist. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 27, 2014 Author Report Posted November 27, 2014 I don't think the best way to bring about change is to destroy your own community. The black people down in Mo were complaining that blacks aren't represented but they just had an election recently where they could've changed things and voted in more blacks but t hey didn't do that, they didn't go out and vote. So the one chance they have to actually get some real change, they don't do it. makes me wonder if they really want change at all and how badly do they want it? Those People amirite? Quote
Shady Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 I don't know what's stupider: the lack of understanding as to why African Americans (many of whom are descendants of actual slaves and for whom segregation and Jim Crow are things of living memory) would have a different experience than groups who came over in numbers within the last few decades or the implication here that those groups don't experience racism, or the implication that black people only have themselves to blame for their problems, which is itself kinda racist. No, for most African Americans, segregation and him crow aren't living memories at all. But how does any if that apply to Michael browns actions? Your arguments are nonsensical. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 Hey, this is great....guilt ridden liberals from Canada have the "black" African American experience all figured out. I'll will explain this to the arresting officer as I shoplift tomorrow on "Black Friday"....after I justifiably assault him/her because of racism. They won't dare shoot me now after what happened to Michael Brown. Thanks Big Mike ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Black Dog Posted November 27, 2014 Author Report Posted November 27, 2014 (edited) No, for most African Americans, segregation and him crow aren't living memories at all. Lot of lead in the water in London? I didn't say for most, I said for many. Jim Crow and segregation was 60 years ago so it's not a stretch to think there are lots of people around with first hand experiences with those and other racist policies like redlining. And of course, those policies were in place for a very very long time, so it's not a stretch to think they would continue to have an impact years later. But how does any if that apply to Michael browns actions? Your arguments are nonsensical. Since you brought them up, what do Asians, East Indians have to do with Mike Brown? Maybe you should go back and read the last few pages of the thread again since you're clearly confused as to how the conversation has flowed. Edited November 27, 2014 by Black Dog Quote
Argus Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 You've got personal anecdotes that prove your position in every discussion, don't you? Still under the mistaken assumption that your experiences are the same as everyone else's, eh? It comes from having lived life. And you seem confused about the validity of personal anecdotes. I'm stating as an absolute fact that I've seen police being arrogant bastards with me and other white people, that I've seen their extreme need to assert themselves on those reluctant to follow their orders. This might be personal anecdotes but you also can't possibly deny that such behaviour by police towards people of all colors is not at all unusual. Are you suggesting your 'experience' is different in that police officers are never abrupt or rude or authoritarian except to non-Whites? Really?! Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 This gets funnier with each post...now Michael Brown is the poster "boy" for Jim Crow laws and racism. Back to football.... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Argus Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 No, once again you're not getting the drift of what's going on. Apparently Hal knows bad cops who like to shoot people. I know good cops that know how to exercise restraint. He didn't say that. But I think the point is police can be authoritarian, are regularly authoritarian (hell, they're the definition of 'authorities'). And that the situation which occurred would quite likely have led to authoritarian behaviour regardless of the race of the assailant. I'd really like to see a study which says police are more lenient, tolerant and forgiving towards White guys who punch them in the face and try to grab their guns than towards Black guys who punch them in the face and try to grab their guns. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Bonam Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 Look if you're going to making pontificating posts about things you clearly know zilch about, i'm going to treat such posts with the contempt they so richly deserve. Be better. No, just because some of us reject absurd ideas like "white privilege", doesn't mean we know nothing about them. Another logical fallacy. Quote
Argus Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 You ever get stopped and told to get on the ground with a gun pointed at you for walking down the street? Why do you even ask that question when you know very well that the cop didn't pull his gun until after Brown was aleady in his window attacking him? But regardless, I can state without hesitation that if a cop points a gun at me and tells me to get on the ground I'm gonna get on the ground. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 (edited) A white guy wouldn't have been treated with such hostility from the cop in the first place. A white guy probably wouldn't have even been told to get out of the street. You know White guys regularly get ticketed for jay walking in New York city? It's kind of hard to imagine a cop car driving around two idiots walking in the middle of the road and ignoring them unless it was on a call. Edited November 27, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 (edited) Yes. Didn't you know? Black people have been oppressing whites for generations. They've got all kinds of social and institutional power to do so. /s The store clerk was Asian, and there are tons of reports of racism being directed towards Asians from Black people. Edited November 27, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 A trial could have revealed actual facts. McCulloch running a Grand Jury would be like Willie Coyote being in charge of the hen house. What actual facts? All the evidence ALL of it was laid out before the Grand Jury. No one has suggested the prosecutor 'forgot' anything. As I said, I believe the prosecutor knew there was no way of getting a conviction but he didn't want to announce he wouldn't be seeking a trial back in August so he gave everything to the grand jury to let them show there was no coverup. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 It's pretty clear, unless you're an imbecile, that cops shouldn't shoot unarmed people. Brown wasn't unarmed. He had the arms of a Hulk Hogan. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 What actual facts? All the evidence ALL of it was laid out before the Grand Jury. No one has suggested the prosecutor 'forgot' anything. As I said, I believe the prosecutor knew there was no way of getting a conviction but he didn't want to announce he wouldn't be seeking a trial back in August so he gave everything to the grand jury to let them show there was no coverup. And yet there's no convincing some people. They would love it if this cop were hanged without any trial baed on their posts. This is another example, as in the sexual assault thread, where we should believe the alleged victim just...because. Quote
Argus Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 (edited) Look at you. Marry a native girl and suddenly you understand racism. Meanwhile, completely ignore people who've been saying there's a serious problem and they experience racism everyday. Racism isn't over because some white kid who can't check his god damned privilege says so. You don't speak for the people who experience it and are bringing attention to it. And you sure as shit don't get to tell them that they're wrong because you in your white tower said so. Yes, we do, actually. Because the mainstream gets to decide whether something is or isn't racism, just like it gets to dismiss a woman's claim that she was sexually assaulted by a man she handed a condom to who never offered her force, violence or threats, and who she never said no to. Edited November 27, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 I don't know what's stupider: the lack of understanding as to why African Americans (many of whom are descendants of actual slaves and for whom segregation and Jim Crow are things of living memory) would have a different experience than groups who came over in numbers within the last few decades or the implication here that those groups don't experience racism, or the implication that black people only have themselves to blame for their problems, which is itself kinda racist. You're trying to summon up background reasons for why Black people might have an unfriendly/uneasy/distrustful relationship with the police. What you don't seem to get is we don't give a damn. Oh, it's a topic worthy of academic discussion and a search for solutions, but in this instance, it really doesn't matter what caused Brown's hostility and violence towards Wilson. All that background stuff is massively overshadowed by the fact he attacked the cop. Once he does that everything goes out the window. It's like we can delve into the background of a serial killer or paedophlie and find all the trauma and abuse in his early history, and even understand how he became the way he is. But it doesn't change what he is, and what we have to do about him. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Black Dog Posted November 27, 2014 Author Report Posted November 27, 2014 No, just because some of us reject absurd ideas like "white privilege", doesn't mean we know nothing about them. Another logical fallacy. OK, so you're not ignorant, just wrong. And also ignorant. Quote
Bonam Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 OK, so you're not ignorant, just wrong. And also ignorant. No, you are just dogmatically close-minded on the subject. Do you bother asking why someone might not agree with leftist preaching about white privilege? Nope. You just assume everyone who disagrees is wrong and ignorant. You want everyone to blindly accept this far left language and idea of white privilege, but never do anything to defend it besides insult people who happen to disagree. That's a surefire way to convince people of your point... not. Do your come to this forum to debate, or just to be rude to people who don't share your views? Quote
Black Dog Posted November 27, 2014 Author Report Posted November 27, 2014 (edited) No, you are just dogmatically close-minded on the subject. Do you bother asking why someone might not agree with leftist preaching about white privilege? Why do I need to ask? You need my permission to share your insights? Nope. You just assume everyone who disagrees is wrong and ignorant. Given what you've put forward (which is to say, not much) it's a fair assumption to make. You want everyone to blindly accept this far left language and idea of white privilege, but never do anything to defend it besides insult people who happen to disagree. I'd spend more time defending it if you spent a little more time with why you think it's bogus. That's a surefire way to convince people of your point... not. I'm not here to convince you of anything. Do your come to this forum to debate, or just to be rude to people who don't share your views? I dunno, do you come here to debate or just toss off one liners and then complain when people don't pen manifestos in response are sort of mean to you? Edited November 27, 2014 by Black Dog Quote
Bonam Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 I'd spend more time defending it if you spent a little more time with why you think it's bogus. You and cybercoma (sorry, don't remember which one of you two brought it first) are the ones to have brought up "white privilege". It is your job to define it and explain how it relates to the topic at hand or the arguments being made. If you expect an echo chamber on this subject, there are other forums for that. This one isn't quite there yet. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 27, 2014 Author Report Posted November 27, 2014 You and cybercoma (sorry, don't remember which one of you two brought it first) are the ones to have brought up "white privilege". It is your job to define it and explain how it relates to the topic at hand or the arguments being made. Why do I need to define it when you've implied you already understand the concept (enough, apparently, to be able to call it "absurd" and reject it)? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 27, 2014 Report Posted November 27, 2014 The facts of this case really don't matter anymore to the true believers. Despite being a very poor example to trumpet as a civil rights injustice and police brutality, they press on in the face of the damning reality: FERGUSON, Mo. — Some witnesses said Michael Brown had been shot in the back. Another said he was face-down on the ground when Officer Darren Wilson "finished him off." Still others acknowledged changing their stories to fit published details about the autopsy or admitted that they did not see the shooting at all. An Associated Press review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made during the shooting investigation that were inconsistent, fabricated or provably wrong. For one, the autopsies ultimately showed Brown was not struck by any bullets in his back. The decision Monday not to charge Wilson with any crime set off more violent protests in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson and around the country, fueled by claims that the unarmed black 18-year-old was shot while surrendering to the white officer in the mostly African-American city. .....What people thought were facts about the Aug. 9 shooting have become intertwined with what many see as abuses of power and racial inequality in America. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.