[quote]Mufasa wrote:
By the way, Beans…
I really have appreciated many of your post lately (and not just on this thread).
Not because I always agreed…but because they show careful thought and reason.
That’s how we learn things.
Thanks.
Mufasa[/quote]
Hey, thanks man. <3 you too.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
As someone with some liberal beliefs, I could originally understand the movement back during the Michael Brown situation, and even the Eric Garner case as well. However, I can’t help but see the movement as existing for the wrong reasons now. They’re seriously overlooking the bigger picture, which is that, yes, ALL lives matter. This movement is continuing the segregation barriers, though unintentionally (unless it’s intentional on their part).
[/quote]
Just a side note: I would characterize those cases in the exactly opposite way. The evidence suggests plainly that Wilson was legally authorized to use lethal force. On the other hand, Garner’s treatment was ludicrous and inexplicable.
As for the question above, no, BLM the movement is not responsible for cop-killing. Obviously. Deray M. and the other prominent protesters (along with their thronged masses of acolytes), buffoons and idiots though they are, are not calling for violence. It isn’t libertarianism’s fault when a nut blows up a federal building, and it isn’t BLM’s fault when a nut shoots a police officer (or when a couple dozen nuts chant a perversion of that the vast majority of the crowd is chanting).
More generally, BLM is what all these kinds of thing are these days: a group finds a worthy (though still reductive/incomplete) cause, builds a narrative, begins granting the narrative preference over fact and reality, veers into fantasyland and idiocy.
“Reductive” is the operate word in this post. BLM’s first flaw, from which all the other ones emanate, is in its ludicrously reductive and misleading assessment of anecdote and data.[/quote]
Do you have any idea how the BLM movement formed? Do you know who is in charge of it? Do you know its goal?[/quote]
Yes, as is clear in the quote you excerpted. What, specifically, are you getting at? A refutation of something I’ve said?[/quote]
I’ll ask you again, if you don’t know the answer it’s okay:
Do you have any idea how the BLM movement formed? Do you know who is in charge of it? Do you know its goal?
[/quote]
Refer to the first word of my last post. Ought I to explain its meaning?
Now, because it would take the promise of a worthwhile contest to entice me to play along in a rhetorical game, I suggest that you drop the questions and get to the point. (There is a point waiting somewhere in the distance, yes?) Are you trying to refute something I’ve said? If so, what? Remember that specificity is your friend.
Edited because a half-joke came off wrong.[/quote]
I asked you those questions simple because I wanted to see if you knew the answers.
Apparently you don’t no big deal.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
But of course facts don’t really matter in this argument do they?[/quote]
They certainly do, but all of them do, not just some.
This issue is both one of statistics and goes much, much deeper than that, and a fight that has been boiling for, at least 150 or so years.
There are a ton of things I want to say about this, mostly bashing the living shit out of democrats. But I’m trying to avoid the deep dive back into political arguments. I’m still unplugged for a few days. [/quote]
The left wing media makes sure that many of those facts do NOT count. Do you realize that there are people walking around both black and white that actually buy into the idea that Darren Wilson shot that thug in the back?
“Hands up don’t shoot” while a total fabrication actually caught on. And the liberal media did NOTHING to dispel it.
So, some facts count and some don’t. And some lies seem to count as well.
[/quote]
I don’t know how to say this without it sounding like I’m defending people ignorant of factual circumstances, so I’ll just bear the brunt of sounding as if I am…
I understand that, and it’s unfortunate. However, at this point, to many involved and invested in the BLM movement, the specifics aren’t as important as the overall point, and the Brown incident is but one of many, many, many over many, many, many years.
So while yes, it appears that the MB shooting was a “good shoot”, and I’m not about to fault anyone for shooting an unarmed person the size of MB attacking them, LEO or not, the facts and circumstances of that particular shooting aren’t really the point anymore. Even if it was the apparent jumpstreet of the BLM movement. Because, to many involved, at least to my understanding, the people interested in good faith, this all started a long time ago…
[/quote]
That’s funny I’ve lived a lot of years and do not recall any of this being an issue until Obama took office. The person who was supposed to heal the world, bring the birds down from the air, and be at the center of lasting peace on earth…or so his supporters said back in 2008.
But he turned to be a really good rabble rousing trouble making community organizer.
So, none of this would be taking place if it were not for him. If you don’t want to talk politics that’s fine. But, facts do matter to me and the fact is Obama instigated this by what he said and by what he refused to say.
96 visits from Al Sharpton to the White House in almost 7 years speaks volumes.
[/quote]
Are you KIDDING me, Zeb?
The Civil Rights Movement was perhaps the largest and longest “BLM” movement there ever was, and probably ever will be.
To think that somehow bringing light to certain issues, that are of real concern, somehow started with this President and his “rabble rousing” is absurd on so many levels.
Mufasa[/quote]
No, your constant defense of a horrible President is absurd.
Obviously, I am aware of the civil rights movement. I’m also aware that since the 1960’s there has been relative peace between the races in most parts of the country.
But now suddenly it’s lost. Now we have BLM cop hating and a host of other very radical and hateful things.
Now let’s see what has changed between then and now?
Would you like me to recite the many Obama words to bring you up to speed, or you just want to go on your merry way blindfolded and singing his praises?
Either way I don’t care…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
But of course facts don’t really matter in this argument do they?[/quote]
They certainly do, but all of them do, not just some.
This issue is both one of statistics and goes much, much deeper than that, and a fight that has been boiling for, at least 150 or so years.
There are a ton of things I want to say about this, mostly bashing the living shit out of democrats. But I’m trying to avoid the deep dive back into political arguments. I’m still unplugged for a few days. [/quote]
The left wing media makes sure that many of those facts do NOT count. Do you realize that there are people walking around both black and white that actually buy into the idea that Darren Wilson shot that thug in the back?
“Hands up don’t shoot” while a total fabrication actually caught on. And the liberal media did NOTHING to dispel it.
So, some facts count and some don’t. And some lies seem to count as well.
[/quote]
I don’t know how to say this without it sounding like I’m defending people ignorant of factual circumstances, so I’ll just bear the brunt of sounding as if I am…
I understand that, and it’s unfortunate. However, at this point, to many involved and invested in the BLM movement, the specifics aren’t as important as the overall point, and the Brown incident is but one of many, many, many over many, many, many years.
So while yes, it appears that the MB shooting was a “good shoot”, and I’m not about to fault anyone for shooting an unarmed person the size of MB attacking them, LEO or not, the facts and circumstances of that particular shooting aren’t really the point anymore. Even if it was the apparent jumpstreet of the BLM movement. Because, to many involved, at least to my understanding, the people interested in good faith, this all started a long time ago…
[/quote]
That’s funny I’ve lived a lot of years and do not recall any of this being an issue until Obama took office. The person who was supposed to heal the world, bring the birds down from the air, and be at the center of lasting peace on earth…or so his supporters said back in 2008.
But he turned to be a really good rabble rousing trouble making community organizer.
So, none of this would be taking place if it were not for him. If you don’t want to talk politics that’s fine. But, facts do matter to me and the fact is Obama instigated this by what he said and by what he refused to say.
96 visits from Al Sharpton to the White House in almost 7 years speaks volumes.
[/quote]
Are you KIDDING me, Zeb?
The Civil Rights Movement was perhaps the largest and longest “BLM” movement there ever was, and probably ever will be.
To think that somehow bringing light to certain issues, that are of real concern, somehow started with this President and his “rabble rousing” is absurd on so many levels.
Mufasa[/quote]
No, your constant defense of a horrible President is absurd.
Obviously, I am aware of the civil rights movement. I’m also aware that since the 1960’s there has been relative peace between the races in most parts of the country.
But now suddenly it’s lost. Now we have BLM cop hating and a host of other very radical and hateful things.
Now let’s see what has changed between then and now?
Would you like me to recite the many Obama words to bring you up to speed, or you just want to go on your merry way blindfolded and singing his praises?
Either way I don’t care…[/quote]
I’ll stay blindfolded if you are the one that’s going to “show me the Light”…
Mufasa
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
By the way, Beans…
I really have appreciated many of your post lately (and not just on this thread).
Not because I always agreed…but because they show careful thought and reason.
That’s how we learn things.
Thanks.
Mufasa[/quote]
Hey, thanks man. <3 you too.
[/quote]
Gayyyyyy
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
But of course facts don’t really matter in this argument do they?[/quote]
They certainly do, but all of them do, not just some.
This issue is both one of statistics and goes much, much deeper than that, and a fight that has been boiling for, at least 150 or so years.
There are a ton of things I want to say about this, mostly bashing the living shit out of democrats. But I’m trying to avoid the deep dive back into political arguments. I’m still unplugged for a few days. [/quote]
The left wing media makes sure that many of those facts do NOT count. Do you realize that there are people walking around both black and white that actually buy into the idea that Darren Wilson shot that thug in the back?
“Hands up don’t shoot” while a total fabrication actually caught on. And the liberal media did NOTHING to dispel it.
So, some facts count and some don’t. And some lies seem to count as well.
[/quote]
I don’t know how to say this without it sounding like I’m defending people ignorant of factual circumstances, so I’ll just bear the brunt of sounding as if I am…
I understand that, and it’s unfortunate. However, at this point, to many involved and invested in the BLM movement, the specifics aren’t as important as the overall point, and the Brown incident is but one of many, many, many over many, many, many years.
So while yes, it appears that the MB shooting was a “good shoot”, and I’m not about to fault anyone for shooting an unarmed person the size of MB attacking them, LEO or not, the facts and circumstances of that particular shooting aren’t really the point anymore. Even if it was the apparent jumpstreet of the BLM movement. Because, to many involved, at least to my understanding, the people interested in good faith, this all started a long time ago…
[/quote]
That’s funny I’ve lived a lot of years and do not recall any of this being an issue until Obama took office. The person who was supposed to heal the world, bring the birds down from the air, and be at the center of lasting peace on earth…or so his supporters said back in 2008.
But he turned to be a really good rabble rousing trouble making community organizer.
So, none of this would be taking place if it were not for him. If you don’t want to talk politics that’s fine. But, facts do matter to me and the fact is Obama instigated this by what he said and by what he refused to say.
96 visits from Al Sharpton to the White House in almost 7 years speaks volumes.
[/quote]
Are you KIDDING me, Zeb?
The Civil Rights Movement was perhaps the largest and longest “BLM” movement there ever was, and probably ever will be.
To think that somehow bringing light to certain issues, that are of real concern, somehow started with this President and his “rabble rousing” is absurd on so many levels.
Mufasa[/quote]
No, your constant defense of a horrible President is absurd.
Obviously, I am aware of the civil rights movement. I’m also aware that since the 1960’s there has been relative peace between the races in most parts of the country.
But now suddenly it’s lost. Now we have BLM cop hating and a host of other very radical and hateful things.
Now let’s see what has changed between then and now?
Would you like me to recite the many Obama words to bring you up to speed, or you just want to go on your merry way blindfolded and singing his praises?
Either way I don’t care…[/quote]
I’ll stay blindfolded if you are the one that’s going to “show me the Light”…
Mufasa
[/quote]
It seems that we’ve had this discussion in the past. I asked…no begged you to make me a really long list of Obama’s accomplishments, as I had with his failures, you couldn’t do it. You ran from the thread never to be seen again. So, go ahead and stay blindfolded because that is of course better than looking at the hard reality of who and what he is, or you can actually man up and tell me why you think Obama is a good President.
Nothing personal here Mufasa. You’ve made mention in the past that Obama is not as bad as I think he is and I’m simply asking you to show me some evidence of that.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
What Obama has proven is that, in a bipartisan way, all politicians are utterly full of bloviating bullshit.
[/quote]
Yes, and specific to BLM I offer the following question: what has voting the democrat ticket the last 50 years done for you?
The answer to which is jack and shit, and maybe they should think about listening to other people and hearing if they have a different set of ideas… [/quote]
And this is why Trump is resonating with people. Maybe people don’t care that he is a blowhard. Maybe people don’t care that he talks bluntly. Maybe people are willing to put up with that in exchange for a guy who gets shit done. Most people don’t know what originally put Trump on the map as a success, was his ability to build the Grand Hyatt in 1980. No one thought he could it, nor could he do it on the time table he claimed, but he did.
People like him and hate him, but when Trump walks in the room, everyone feels like daddy’s home.
As to what has black people voting Dem for the last 50 years, I will quote Charles Barkley…
“…Black people have been voting Dem their whole lives and they’re still broke…”
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
As someone with some liberal beliefs, I could originally understand the movement back during the Michael Brown situation, and even the Eric Garner case as well. However, I can’t help but see the movement as existing for the wrong reasons now. They’re seriously overlooking the bigger picture, which is that, yes, ALL lives matter. This movement is continuing the segregation barriers, though unintentionally (unless it’s intentional on their part).
[/quote]
Just a side note: I would characterize those cases in the exactly opposite way. The evidence suggests plainly that Wilson was legally authorized to use lethal force. On the other hand, Garner’s treatment was ludicrous and inexplicable.
As for the question above, no, BLM the movement is not responsible for cop-killing. Obviously. Deray M. and the other prominent protesters (along with their thronged masses of acolytes), buffoons and idiots though they are, are not calling for violence. It isn’t libertarianism’s fault when a nut blows up a federal building, and it isn’t BLM’s fault when a nut shoots a police officer (or when a couple dozen nuts chant a perversion of that the vast majority of the crowd is chanting).
More generally, BLM is what all these kinds of thing are these days: a group finds a worthy (though still reductive/incomplete) cause, builds a narrative, begins granting the narrative preference over fact and reality, veers into fantasyland and idiocy.
“Reductive” is the operate word in this post. BLM’s first flaw, from which all the other ones emanate, is in its ludicrously reductive and misleading assessment of anecdote and data.[/quote]
Do you have any idea how the BLM movement formed? Do you know who is in charge of it? Do you know its goal?[/quote]
Yes, as is clear in the quote you excerpted. What, specifically, are you getting at? A refutation of something I’ve said?[/quote]
I’ll ask you again, if you don’t know the answer it’s okay:
Do you have any idea how the BLM movement formed? Do you know who is in charge of it? Do you know its goal?
[/quote]
Refer to the first word of my last post. Ought I to explain its meaning?
Now, because it would take the promise of a worthwhile contest to entice me to play along in a rhetorical game, I suggest that you drop the questions and get to the point. (There is a point waiting somewhere in the distance, yes?) Are you trying to refute something I’ve said? If so, what? Remember that specificity is your friend.
Edited because a half-joke came off wrong.[/quote]
I asked you those questions simple because I wanted to see if you knew the answers.
Apparently you don’t no big deal.
[/quote]
You asked whether I knew the answers. It should be clear to you from my posts that I am familiar not only with these risibly basic facts about BLM but also with the smallest details of the cases (Brown, Garner, Scott etc.) from which BLM has been drawing momentum all year. By “familiar” I mean that I have read not only the Brown GJ report but also the Ferguson P.D. misconduct investigation – and everything in between. As an aside, you should probably assume that there is no topic, from Iran (which is another debate for which I have done the reading [the JPCOA] and you have not) to Trayvon Martin, on which you would be in a position to quiz me rather than the reverse. This may sound arrogant, but it’s so plainly true that it would be false modesty for me to pretend otherwise.
Anyway, now that that’s cleared up. Are you trying to make a point? Are you trying to agree with or refute a single word I’ve said? If so, now is the hour for you to screw your courage to the sticking place and go for it. The poor bushes can’t take any more beating.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
The death of any Law Enforcement Officer is a tragedy, that certainly makes us all less safe…
But please…
Let’s tone down the rhetoric that Law Enforcement is being gunned down left and right…and stop blaming it on this President and some “movement”
http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html
(Try being Law Enforcement during Prohibition; and the “Public Enemy”/Depression Era…and the facts show that deaths were pretty high during the “Reagan Years” too…
Mufasa[/quote]
Ah ha! Glad you pointed that out.
It’s the same as BLM! Right? This raw, misdirected emotion and complaint of “police murdering black people”. The facts don’t support it. Just raw, misguided emotion. Frustration at their plight and refusal to accept responsibility for communing huge amounts of crime, refusing to learn to speak/read/write and having 2 fathers in a community of 10,000.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
As someone with some liberal beliefs, I could originally understand the movement back during the Michael Brown situation, and even the Eric Garner case as well. However, I can’t help but see the movement as existing for the wrong reasons now. They’re seriously overlooking the bigger picture, which is that, yes, ALL lives matter. This movement is continuing the segregation barriers, though unintentionally (unless it’s intentional on their part).
[/quote]
Just a side note: I would characterize those cases in the exactly opposite way. The evidence suggests plainly that Wilson was legally authorized to use lethal force. On the other hand, Garner’s treatment was ludicrous and inexplicable.
As for the question above, no, BLM the movement is not responsible for cop-killing. Obviously. Deray M. and the other prominent protesters (along with their thronged masses of acolytes), buffoons and idiots though they are, are not calling for violence. It isn’t libertarianism’s fault when a nut blows up a federal building, and it isn’t BLM’s fault when a nut shoots a police officer (or when a couple dozen nuts chant a perversion of that the vast majority of the crowd is chanting).
More generally, BLM is what all these kinds of thing are these days: a group finds a worthy (though still reductive/incomplete) cause, builds a narrative, begins granting the narrative preference over fact and reality, veers into fantasyland and idiocy.
“Reductive” is the operate word in this post. BLM’s first flaw, from which all the other ones emanate, is in its ludicrously reductive and misleading assessment of anecdote and data.[/quote]
Do you have any idea how the BLM movement formed? Do you know who is in charge of it? Do you know its goal?[/quote]
Yes, as is clear in the quote you excerpted. What, specifically, are you getting at? A refutation of something I’ve said?[/quote]
I’ll ask you again, if you don’t know the answer it’s okay:
Do you have any idea how the BLM movement formed? Do you know who is in charge of it? Do you know its goal?
[/quote]
Refer to the first word of my last post. Ought I to explain its meaning?
Now, because it would take the promise of a worthwhile contest to entice me to play along in a rhetorical game, I suggest that you drop the questions and get to the point. (There is a point waiting somewhere in the distance, yes?) Are you trying to refute something I’ve said? If so, what? Remember that specificity is your friend.
Edited because a half-joke came off wrong.[/quote]
I asked you those questions simple because I wanted to see if you knew the answers.
Apparently you don’t no big deal.
[/quote]
You asked whether I knew the answers. It should be clear to you from my posts that I am familiar not only with these risibly basic facts about BLM but also with the smallest details of the cases (Brown, Garner, Scott etc.) from which BLM has been drawing momentum all year. By “familiar” I mean that I have read not only the Brown GJ report but also the Ferguson P.D. misconduct investigation – and everything in between. As an aside, you should probably assume that there is no topic, from Iran (which is another debate for which I have done the reading [the JPCOA] and you have not) to Trayvon Martin, on which you would be in a position to quiz me rather than the reverse. This may sound arrogant, but it’s so plainly true that it would be false modesty for me to pretend otherwise.
Anyway, now that that’s cleared up. Are you trying to make a point? Are you trying to agree with or refute a single word I’ve said? If so, now is the hour for you to screw your courage to the sticking place and go for it. The poor bushes can’t take any more beating.[/quote]
I was simply asking you a few questions. Instead of going off on a tangent telling us all how smart you are (eye roll) all you had to do was actually answer the question and prove how smart you are.
But…
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
The death of any Law Enforcement Officer is a tragedy, that certainly makes us all less safe…
But please…
Let’s tone down the rhetoric that Law Enforcement is being gunned down left and right…and stop blaming it on this President and some “movement”
http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html
(Try being Law Enforcement during Prohibition; and the “Public Enemy”/Depression Era…and the facts show that deaths were pretty high during the “Reagan Years” too…
Mufasa[/quote]
Ah ha! Glad you pointed that out.
It’s the same as BLM! Right? This raw, misdirected emotion and complaint of “police murdering black people”. The facts don’t support it. Just raw, misguided emotion. Frustration at their plight and refusal to accept responsibility for communing huge amounts of crime, refusing to learn to speak/read/write and having 2 fathers in a community of 10,000.
[/quote]
I agree with what you said for the most part, but I’m not sure it’s fair to say that the black community as a whole is primarily responsible for their plight. Without the infiltration of communist agitators in the 60s and the institution of the welfare state the black family would be thriving. Driving the black community into the endless poverty/crime pit in order to guarantee they vote Democrat is a well documented conscious effort, not an unfortunate coincidence.
There is of course a problem of white guilt as well creating an impenetrable buffer for the socialists in power, so If you are white and you acquiesce to the bullshit of BLM and white guilt, then you are just as responsible for perpetuating the problems in the black community as the people in the BLM movement.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
The death of any Law Enforcement Officer is a tragedy, that certainly makes us all less safe…
But please…
Let’s tone down the rhetoric that Law Enforcement is being gunned down left and right…and stop blaming it on this President and some “movement”
http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html
(Try being Law Enforcement during Prohibition; and the “Public Enemy”/Depression Era…and the facts show that deaths were pretty high during the “Reagan Years” too…
Mufasa[/quote]
Ah ha! Glad you pointed that out.
It’s the same as BLM! Right? This raw, misdirected emotion and complaint of “police murdering black people”. The facts don’t support it. Just raw, misguided emotion. Frustration at their plight and refusal to accept responsibility for communing huge amounts of crime, refusing to learn to speak/read/write and having 2 fathers in a community of 10,000.
[/quote]
APPLAUSE!
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
The death of any Law Enforcement Officer is a tragedy, that certainly makes us all less safe…
But please…
Let’s tone down the rhetoric that Law Enforcement is being gunned down left and right…and stop blaming it on this President and some “movement”
http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html
(Try being Law Enforcement during Prohibition; and the “Public Enemy”/Depression Era…and the facts show that deaths were pretty high during the “Reagan Years” too…
Mufasa[/quote]
Ah ha! Glad you pointed that out.
It’s the same as BLM! Right? This raw, misdirected emotion and complaint of “police murdering black people”. The facts don’t support it. Just raw, misguided emotion. Frustration at their plight and refusal to accept responsibility for communing huge amounts of crime, refusing to learn to speak/read/write and having 2 fathers in a community of 10,000.
[/quote]
I agree with what you said for the most part, but I’m not sure it’s fair to say that the black community as a whole is primarily responsible for their plight. Without the infiltration of communist agitators in the 60s and the institution of the welfare state the black family would be thriving. Driving the black community into the endless poverty/crime pit in order to guarantee they vote Democrat is a well documented conscious effort, not an unfortunate coincidence.
There is of course a problem of white guilt as well creating an impenetrable buffer for the socialists in power, so If you are white and you acquiesce to the bullshit of BLM and white guilt, then you are just as responsible for perpetuating the problems in the black community as the people in the BLM movement.
[/quote]
But see, I don’t think it’s an issue with “The Black Community”. It’s that segment ( albeit large) in the inner-city ghettos that want to play the perpetual victim and complain. You don’t see black plumbers, salesmen, electricians and regular people. It’s the disgruntled victims along with college kids and some guilty white liberals. These are the miscreants that make up groups like BLM.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
As someone with some liberal beliefs, I could originally understand the movement back during the Michael Brown situation, and even the Eric Garner case as well. However, I can’t help but see the movement as existing for the wrong reasons now. They’re seriously overlooking the bigger picture, which is that, yes, ALL lives matter. This movement is continuing the segregation barriers, though unintentionally (unless it’s intentional on their part).
[/quote]
Just a side note: I would characterize those cases in the exactly opposite way. The evidence suggests plainly that Wilson was legally authorized to use lethal force. On the other hand, Garner’s treatment was ludicrous and inexplicable.
As for the question above, no, BLM the movement is not responsible for cop-killing. Obviously. Deray M. and the other prominent protesters (along with their thronged masses of acolytes), buffoons and idiots though they are, are not calling for violence. It isn’t libertarianism’s fault when a nut blows up a federal building, and it isn’t BLM’s fault when a nut shoots a police officer (or when a couple dozen nuts chant a perversion of that the vast majority of the crowd is chanting).
More generally, BLM is what all these kinds of thing are these days: a group finds a worthy (though still reductive/incomplete) cause, builds a narrative, begins granting the narrative preference over fact and reality, veers into fantasyland and idiocy.
“Reductive” is the operate word in this post. BLM’s first flaw, from which all the other ones emanate, is in its ludicrously reductive and misleading assessment of anecdote and data.[/quote]
Do you have any idea how the BLM movement formed? Do you know who is in charge of it? Do you know its goal?[/quote]
Yes, as is clear in the quote you excerpted. What, specifically, are you getting at? A refutation of something I’ve said?[/quote]
I’ll ask you again, if you don’t know the answer it’s okay:
Do you have any idea how the BLM movement formed? Do you know who is in charge of it? Do you know its goal?
[/quote]
Refer to the first word of my last post. Ought I to explain its meaning?
Now, because it would take the promise of a worthwhile contest to entice me to play along in a rhetorical game, I suggest that you drop the questions and get to the point. (There is a point waiting somewhere in the distance, yes?) Are you trying to refute something I’ve said? If so, what? Remember that specificity is your friend.
Edited because a half-joke came off wrong.[/quote]
I asked you those questions simple because I wanted to see if you knew the answers.
Apparently you don’t no big deal.
[/quote]
You asked whether I knew the answers. It should be clear to you from my posts that I am familiar not only with these risibly basic facts about BLM but also with the smallest details of the cases (Brown, Garner, Scott etc.) from which BLM has been drawing momentum all year. By “familiar” I mean that I have read not only the Brown GJ report but also the Ferguson P.D. misconduct investigation – and everything in between. As an aside, you should probably assume that there is no topic, from Iran (which is another debate for which I have done the reading [the JPCOA] and you have not) to Trayvon Martin, on which you would be in a position to quiz me rather than the reverse. This may sound arrogant, but it’s so plainly true that it would be false modesty for me to pretend otherwise.
Anyway, now that that’s cleared up. Are you trying to make a point? Are you trying to agree with or refute a single word I’ve said? If so, now is the hour for you to screw your courage to the sticking place and go for it. The poor bushes can’t take any more beating.[/quote]
I was simply asking you a few questions. Instead of going off on a tangent telling us all how smart you are (eye roll) all you had to do was actually answer the question and prove how smart you are.
But…
[/quote]
Smart and knowledgeable are different attributes. The latter requires work – work that you clearly do not do. And don’t pretend otherwise: no one is fooled in the slightest.
Anyway, I don’t waste my time with low-level nonsense. I gave my informed (and unsympathetic) assessment of BLM. You appear to disagree with…something…therein. You’re free to explain.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
As someone with some liberal beliefs, I could originally understand the movement back during the Michael Brown situation, and even the Eric Garner case as well. However, I can’t help but see the movement as existing for the wrong reasons now. They’re seriously overlooking the bigger picture, which is that, yes, ALL lives matter. This movement is continuing the segregation barriers, though unintentionally (unless it’s intentional on their part).
[/quote]
Just a side note: I would characterize those cases in the exactly opposite way. The evidence suggests plainly that Wilson was legally authorized to use lethal force. On the other hand, Garner’s treatment was ludicrous and inexplicable.
As for the question above, no, BLM the movement is not responsible for cop-killing. Obviously. Deray M. and the other prominent protesters (along with their thronged masses of acolytes), buffoons and idiots though they are, are not calling for violence. It isn’t libertarianism’s fault when a nut blows up a federal building, and it isn’t BLM’s fault when a nut shoots a police officer (or when a couple dozen nuts chant a perversion of that the vast majority of the crowd is chanting).
More generally, BLM is what all these kinds of thing are these days: a group finds a worthy (though still reductive/incomplete) cause, builds a narrative, begins granting the narrative preference over fact and reality, veers into fantasyland and idiocy.
“Reductive” is the operate word in this post. BLM’s first flaw, from which all the other ones emanate, is in its ludicrously reductive and misleading assessment of anecdote and data.[/quote]
Do you have any idea how the BLM movement formed? Do you know who is in charge of it? Do you know its goal?[/quote]
Yes, as is clear in the quote you excerpted. What, specifically, are you getting at? A refutation of something I’ve said?[/quote]
I’ll ask you again, if you don’t know the answer it’s okay:
Do you have any idea how the BLM movement formed? Do you know who is in charge of it? Do you know its goal?
[/quote]
Refer to the first word of my last post. Ought I to explain its meaning?
Now, because it would take the promise of a worthwhile contest to entice me to play along in a rhetorical game, I suggest that you drop the questions and get to the point. (There is a point waiting somewhere in the distance, yes?) Are you trying to refute something I’ve said? If so, what? Remember that specificity is your friend.
Edited because a half-joke came off wrong.[/quote]
I asked you those questions simple because I wanted to see if you knew the answers.
Apparently you don’t no big deal.
[/quote]
You asked whether I knew the answers. It should be clear to you from my posts that I am familiar not only with these risibly basic facts about BLM but also with the smallest details of the cases (Brown, Garner, Scott etc.) from which BLM has been drawing momentum all year. By “familiar” I mean that I have read not only the Brown GJ report but also the Ferguson P.D. misconduct investigation – and everything in between. As an aside, you should probably assume that there is no topic, from Iran (which is another debate for which I have done the reading [the JPCOA] and you have not) to Trayvon Martin, on which you would be in a position to quiz me rather than the reverse. This may sound arrogant, but it’s so plainly true that it would be false modesty for me to pretend otherwise.
Anyway, now that that’s cleared up. Are you trying to make a point? Are you trying to agree with or refute a single word I’ve said? If so, now is the hour for you to screw your courage to the sticking place and go for it. The poor bushes can’t take any more beating.[/quote]
I was simply asking you a few questions. Instead of going off on a tangent telling us all how smart you are (eye roll) all you had to do was actually answer the question and prove how smart you are.
But…
[/quote]
Smart and knowledgeable are different attributes. The latter requires work – work that you clearly do not do. And don’t pretend otherwise: no one is fooled in the slightest.
Anyway, I don’t waste my time with low-level nonsense. I gave my informed (and unsympathetic) assessment of BLM. You appear to disagree with…something…therein. You’re free to explain.[/quote]
I never said that I disagreed with a single word you wrote. I simply asked a few questions that you were unable to answer mister high and mighty.
^ *Unwilling. As I’m sure you know, you haven’t stumped me with three basic questions about a reductive and simplistic political movement that’s in the news every day.
And I’m not being high and mighty. I simply don’t participate in Socratic-method style argument unless it’s with somebody who knows a hell of a lot more than I about the issue at hand, and even then I’d probably resist.
Anyway, so we essentially agree on BLM. Sort of. I’d say that if we were to mix some of your arguments with some of T. N. Coates’ (not BLM per se but an intellectualized distillation of its principles, flaws and absurdities and all), we’d arrive in the vicinity of the truth. But this would require each of you to learn that the partial veracity of your claims does not necessarily invalidate the partial veracity of your opponent’s claims (i.e., that not all disagreements are made of mutually exclusive evidence/propositions). I have full confidence that neither of you is capable of this.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^ *Unwilling. As I’m sure you know, you haven’t stumped me with three basic questions about a reductive and simplistic political movement that’s in the news every day.
And I’m not being high and mighty. I simply don’t participate in Socratic-method style argument unless it’s with somebody who knows a hell of a lot more than I about the issue at hand, and even then I’d probably resist.
Anyway, so we essentially agree on BLM. Sort of. I’d say that if we were to mix some of your arguments with some of T. N. Coates’ (not BLM per se but an intellectualized distillation of its principles, flaws and absurdities and all), we’d arrive in the vicinity of the truth. But this would require each of you to learn that the partial veracity of your claims does not necessarily invalidate the partial veracity of your opponent’s claims (i.e., that not all disagreements are made of mutually exclusive evidence/propositions). I have full confidence that neither of you is capable of this.[/quote]
LOL, well you certainly have tried to make this into something that it is not. In school or in any classroom situation when someone is asked to answer a question, or a series of questions by either a fellow student or Professor he or she gives their best answer and is either correct or incorrect. But either way attempts to be helpful. But in the world of smh the only answer is to comeback with no answer at all. Instead a series of insults are used automatically assuming that the person asking the questions is looking for a fight.
Ooookay my friend now you take care and if the air that you are breathing gets a bit too thin way up there try to come back down to earth and inhale occasionally.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Instead a series of insults are used automatically assuming that the person asking the questions is looking for a fight.
[/quote]
I don’t mean to insult you, but “knowledge” is not like “intelligence” – you either went out and earned it, or you didn’t. If I’m wrong and you have read the materials I’ve mentioned in this thread (including, importantly, the Justice Department’s F.P.D. investigation), then I retract my statement. If I’m right, then call it whatever you want, but it’s uncontroversial to propose that a tailor should know how to sew. Only on PWI, where so many want to loudly opine from a position of blissful ignorance (and still be taken seriously), is this proposition met with resistance.
Also, I didn’t assume you to be looking for a fight. I assumed you to be looking for an argument, and I wanted you to get to it.
Anyway, I’ll let the thread return to BLM.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I didn’t assume you to be looking for a fight. I assumed you to be looking for an argument, and I wanted you to get to it.
[/quote]
I think sometimes we all walk into situations half cocked and ready to fire, at least around here. At times I’m just as guilty as you are.
As for what I meant when I said that my position is a blend of yours and theirs:
You are right about black men and crime – particularly violent crime. It takes the most ludicrously idiotic propagandist to fail to understand that higher proportional rates of violent crime will necessarily lead to higher proportional rates of cop-community interaction, including hostile/tense/dangerous interaction. BLM and Ta-Nehisi Coates and all the rest of them essentially remove moral agency from black people by sidestepping this entire aspect of the conversation. There are many related points, but I don’t feel like going into all of it, and I’m sure most people around here are pretty familiar with this stuff.
On the other hand, the BLM folks are right about many (not all – see Brown, Michael) of the individual cases they’ve chosen to highlight, and they are right that it ought to be our goal, as a civilized society concerned from the utter outset with things like individual liberties and rights (and opposed to the concept of collective guilt), to minimize outcomes like, e.g., Garner’s. Most conservatives I’ve met agree with this. Where they stumble is in failing to understand that the famous cases – the ones to which we can all refer by name – aren’t just bad-apple-cop narratives. They also tell stories of general and structural problems which contribute to and increase the likelihood of abuse, tension, etc. The Justice Department report I’ve been referring to evidences this in microcosm. There is a P.D. obsessed with revenue generation, aggressively pestering specifically black citizens in order to make up projected budgetary shortfalls. There is a ridiculously corrupt municipal court. There are actual, good old-fashioned racist emails exchanged among officials. Most importantly, there are daily interactions like this one:
[quote]
In the summer of 2012, a
32-year-old African-American man sat in his car cooling off after playing basketball in a
Ferguson public park. An officer pulled up behind the man?s car, blocking him in, and
demanded the man?s Social Security number and identification. Without any cause, the officer
accused the man of being a pedophile, referring to the presence of children in the park, and
ordered the man out of his car for a pat-down, although the officer had no reason to believe the
man was armed. The officer also asked to search the man?s car. The man objected, citing his
constitutional rights. In response, the officer arrested the man, reportedly at gunpoint, charging
him with eight violations of Ferguson?s municipal code. One charge, Making a False
Declaration, was for initially providing the short form of his first name (e.g., ?Mike? instead of
?Michael?), and an address which, although legitimate, was different from the one on his driver?s
license. Another charge was for not wearing a seat belt, even though he was seated in a parked
car. The officer also charged the man both with having an expired operator?s license, and with
having no operator?s license in his possession. The man told us that, because of these charges,
he lost his job as a contractor with the federal government that he had held for years.[/quote]