Cops Are not Bad People and the System is not Corrupt

[Bert]

Found the blocking feature. Problem solved.

[Mr. X]

The US flat out is not racially unjust unless you want to consider drowning blacks in welfare, encouraging single moms and treating blacks like special needs kids and promoting affirmative action.

These opinions are revolting. I will no longer be reading Mr. X's posts.

And the posts about the US being systemically racist are revolting. It means 75 years of progressivism is a failure.

[Mr. X]

Alright, calm heads people.

I saw this today and I hoped those days were left in the 60s

Screenshot_20200727-212407~2.png

Now you know why some of us believe in the second amendment and won't disarm ourselves and be at the mercy of the state.

Is this the "you don't need guns, the police will protect you" claim?

[Damselbinder]

The US flat out is not racially unjust unless you want to consider drowning blacks in welfare, encouraging single moms and treating blacks like special needs kids and promoting affirmative action.

These opinions are revolting. I will no longer be reading Mr. X's posts.

And the posts about the US being systemically racist are revolting. It means 75 years of progressivism is a failure.

Do you think it's just been 75 years of pure, unadulterated, unopposed progressivism, with no other political philosophies fighting against it? That progressives have had a 75 year free run in total control of the political machinery of your country? You said earlier "well America's just as bad on race as in the forties, therefore progressivism is a failure" or words to that extent. Given that segregation was still legally enforced all over the country in the 40s, I doubt very much that people would say that. People can live openly as transexuals. Women have greater, though by NOOOO means perfect , equality with men. People can live openly as homosexuals and get married to their same-sex lovers. Generally speaking people of different races can be in relationships without fear of being disowned by their families or lynched - certainly a lot less fear than in the 40s. The fact that there's still massive inequality means there's still huge amounts of work to be done. The fact that the project of progressivism is incomplete does not mean it's a failure. That would be like me saying "Well there have been police in America since 1838, and there's still loads of crime! Policing is a failure!"

[Femina]

And the posts about the US being systemically racist are revolting. It means 75 years of progressivism is a failure.

75 years of progressiveness haven't FAILED exactly... but it's a sure fudging shot from successfully crossing the finish line... and just because it's insulting doesn't mean it can't also be true. If something shouldn't be talked about cause it's revolting then a wide alley of topics would never EVER be discussed or approached. We can't just pretend things are all great because discussing them may be upsetting, that may aid a few people's temporary comfort, but doesn't actually solve anything.

It's also kind of a STRAWMAN mentality don't you think? Assuming that progressivism has just blanket succeeded and therefore everyone who disagrees is wrong and has a wicked and evil agenda so therefore 'shut up about it!'

[Mr. X]

Look, its pretty apparent that the people here all want a place they can huddle and agree without anyone challenging them or disagreeing. I guess that's called diversity?

In any event if all you want is a bobblehead chorus then fine.

[Femina]

Look, its pretty apparent that the people here all want a place they can huddle and agree without anyone challenging them or disagreeing. I guess that's called diversity?

In any event if all you want is a bobblehead chorus then fine.

You mean that's not what this meant?

And the posts about the US being systemically racist are revolting. It means 75 years of progressivism is a failure.

[tallyho]

Alright, calm heads people.

I saw this today and I hoped those days were left in the 60s

Screenshot_20200727-212407~2.png

Now you know why some of us believe in the second amendment and won't disarm ourselves and be at the mercy of the state.

Is this the "you don't need guns, the police will protect you" claim?

The full original wording on the right to bare arms stated 'in the absence of a standing army... '
Last time I checked you had quite a large one.

And its an AMENDMENT which means you can amend it further and take away the right for guys to own 50 calibre machine guns.

I am not anti gun ownership. You have valid reasons in parts of the country with a lot of lethal wildlife and some areas where emergency services would take over an hour to arrive.
I am all for responsible ownership. Which for my money as a minimum means no criminals and no one mentally ill can own guns especially automatic weapons.

Also where you say

"Now you know why some of us believe in the second amendment and won't disarm ourselves and be at the mercy of the state."

It's those people who won't disarm who voted for this government that's pointing the guns at people in the first place.

[bushwackerbob]

The thing is, I hear calm level headed, intelligent people on here of all political stripes and ideologies rightfully calling out the bad actors in these dramas, the people who have committed violence, done damage to property, and generally caused a lot of general mayhem during these peaceful BLM protests, in essence in my estimation articulating a normal human reaction to the chaos all around us. Why is it then that our leaders of every political stripe and ideology have largely remained mum on the outbreaks of violence and mayhem, why are our political leaders afraid to say that yes, that peaceful protests are perfectly cool and appropriate (the COVID thing being my only bone to pick with) but this mindless and destructive violence and mayhem, this degeneration into mob mentality (I liked your point Femina about how many of these causes degenerate into something else entirely) is a terrible occurrence that must not be tolerated, encouraged, either tacitly or overtly. Our politicians have been gutless because of their retticience to call out these bad actors and destructive behavior. I heard that dummy Fredo Cuomo on CNN actually say "why must protests be non violent", and we had a local anchorbabe here in Boston when we had some rioting and looting in the area during live coverage of these riots lamented with a sneering and resentful tone about a business that had already boarded up a storefront before the rioting and looting had begun, as if how dare they protect their hard earned money and investments from the mindless and senseless violence and mayhem. I know that I have to remind myself that social media is not representative of the world as a whole, but I just can't shake this idea that we have a growing number of anarchists among us, those who do not believe in the rule of law and common decency to our fellow man, that it's become increasingly fashionable to support anarchist beliefs and behavior in certain quarters of society. I am not a fan of our all encompassing cancel culture, but I think we as a society must begin to highlight those individuals who encourage both tacitly and overtly that lawlessness and anarchy that this violence and mayhem may inevitably devolve into something worse if we do not have a course correction sometime in the future. Calling out the riots, mayhem, and violence does not mean that one does not support the BLM movement, just that they support the peaceful and just reforms the movement represents without the unfortunate violence and mayhem that has unfortunately accompanied some of these protests.

[Femina]

"Unless someone cares a whole awful lot. Nothing's going to get better. Its not."
I've always admired this sentence of Seuss more than pretty much anything he ever wrote. It's not a question... and it's so painfully blunt. That final 'It's not' isn't just the end of a statement. It's an exclamation mark begging for action.

People don't resort to mob violence because they are bad, or wrong. In fact, rationality, scheming, political machinations, ANARCHISM... are usually the last things on a person's mind when they are most vulnerable to mob mentality. The simple truth is that they are protesting because they CARE.... A WHOLE AWFUL LOT. They care so much that their emotions are running hot. Intense Emotion can then lead to mob violence.

It's not wrong to be upset by this, it's not wrong to push for the IDEA of perfect nonviolence...

but.

There's a difference between idea and reality that we as human beings MUST accept. The IDEA of perfect peace and happiness and equality is wonderful, the reality is we'll never EVER have that. We're too many, too fractured, too human. The Idea of nonviolence always carrying the day to that perfect peace is equally wonderful... but we HAVE to accept Mob Mentality because its an actual psychological phenomenon that exists and has always existed. It's HUMAN NATURE. We can guard against it, we can choose not to succumb to it ourselves with extreme exertions of will, we can advise against it... but no amount of wishing will ever stop mob's from forming. They will continue to happen whenever and wherever enough people with a common grievance or emotional state come together.

But bear with me.

It's NOT good. Mob violence is an ugly ugly thing. I'm not saying you have to accept Mob Mentality exists THEREFORE don't speak out against it... But it HAS to be separated from the CAUSE when analyzing repercussions and considering punishment. Perhaps more important than anything here is that we must accept that valid reasoning for protests do not become INVALID because our primitive monkey brained instincts are taken over to Mob violence. You can repremend the violence without using that violence to invalidate the thing that created it... each time you ignore the cause of violence you risk the next time being worse. It's not an equal sum game. Tit for tat doesn't always work. Punishing a crime isn't invariably prevention of said crime. The real villain's here are the mindset that these protests are an over reaction that we must combat... or else the urge to DISMISS, by association of violence, that the cause is invalid or nonexistent... because doing so virtually guarantees the continuation of division, disquiet, and violence.

Speak out against the violence, call for it to stop... but don't use that as a platform to tell people that their lives are actually better than they think they are. You are not those people, you aren't living their lives. The only measurement by which you have to equate what their lives are in comparison to yours is that they are motivated to scream their grievances en masse in the streets during a WORLDWIDE pandemic and you are not.

It's not wrong to feel safe. It's not wrong to want to remain safe. It's not wrong to be incapable to do something for those who don't feel safe... and therefore to feel as though you need to separate yourself from thinking too hard about it...............
but there's no reason whatsoever to tell people who don't feel safe that they are wrong... it costs you nothing to say 'you should be able to feel safe' and simply not STAND IN THE WAY of their efforts to feel safe again.

[Dazzle1]

"Unless someone cares a whole awful lot. Nothing's going to get better. Its not."
I've always admired this sentence of Seuss more than pretty much anything he ever wrote. It's not a question... and it's so painfully blunt. That final 'It's not' isn't just the end of a statement. It's an exclamation mark begging for action.

People don't resort to mob violence because they are bad, or wrong. In fact, rationality, scheming, political machinations, ANARCHISM... are usually the last things on a person's mind when they are most vulnerable to mob mentality. The simple truth is that they are protesting because they CARE.... A WHOLE AWFUL LOT. They care so much that their emotions are running hot. Intense Emotion can then lead to mob violence.

It's not wrong to be upset by this, it's not wrong to push for the IDEA of perfect nonviolence...

but.

There's a difference between idea and reality that we as human beings MUST accept. The IDEA of perfect peace and happiness and equality is wonderful, the reality is we'll never EVER have that. We're too many, too fractured, too human. The Idea of nonviolence always carrying the day to that perfect peace is equally wonderful... but we HAVE to accept Mob Mentality because its an actual psychological phenomenon that exists and has always existed. It's HUMAN NATURE. We can guard against it, we can choose not to succumb to it ourselves with extreme exertions of will, we can advise against it... but no amount of wishing will ever stop mob's from forming. They will continue to happen whenever and wherever enough people with a common grievance or emotional state come together.

But bear with me.

It's NOT good. Mob violence is an ugly ugly thing. I'm not saying you have to accept Mob Mentality exists THEREFORE don't speak out against it... But it HAS to be separated from the CAUSE when analyzing repercussions and considering punishment. Perhaps more important than anything here is that we must accept that valid reasoning for protests do not become INVALID because our primitive monkey brained instincts are taken over to Mob violence. You can repremend the violence without using that violence to invalidate the thing that created it... each time you ignore the cause of violence you risk the next time being worse. It's not an equal sum game. Tit for tat doesn't always work. Punishing a crime isn't invariably prevention of said crime. The real villain's here are the mindset that these protests are an over reaction that we must combat... or else the urge to DISMISS, by association of violence, that the cause is invalid or nonexistent... because doing so virtually guarantees the continuation of division, disquiet, and violence.

Speak out against the violence, call for it to stop... but don't use that as a platform to tell people that their lives are actually better than they think they are. You are not those people, you aren't living their lives. The only measurement by which you have to equate what their lives are in comparison to yours is that they are motivated to scream their grievances en masse in the streets during a WORLDWIDE pandemic and you are not.

It's not wrong to feel safe. It's not wrong to want to remain safe. It's not wrong to be incapable to do something for those who don't feel safe... and therefore to feel as though you need to separate yourself from thinking too hard about it...............
but there's no reason whatsoever to tell people who don't feel safe that they are wrong... it costs you nothing to say 'you should be able to feel safe' and simply not STAND IN THE WAY of their efforts to feel safe again.

I disagree the protests are an overaction. For those that are doing for the so called reason which is George Floyd's death.

Sorry but the police involved were charged very quickly and the lie of police brutality and targeting is just that.

The notion of defunding police are done by people who don't care about how many people would be killed or women raped by no police being available

[Damselbinder]

"Unless someone cares a whole awful lot. Nothing's going to get better. Its not."
I've always admired this sentence of Seuss more than pretty much anything he ever wrote. It's not a question... and it's so painfully blunt. That final 'It's not' isn't just the end of a statement. It's an exclamation mark begging for action.

People don't resort to mob violence because they are bad, or wrong. In fact, rationality, scheming, political machinations, ANARCHISM... are usually the last things on a person's mind when they are most vulnerable to mob mentality. The simple truth is that they are protesting because they CARE.... A WHOLE AWFUL LOT. They care so much that their emotions are running hot. Intense Emotion can then lead to mob violence.

It's not wrong to be upset by this, it's not wrong to push for the IDEA of perfect nonviolence...

but.

There's a difference between idea and reality that we as human beings MUST accept. The IDEA of perfect peace and happiness and equality is wonderful, the reality is we'll never EVER have that. We're too many, too fractured, too human. The Idea of nonviolence always carrying the day to that perfect peace is equally wonderful... but we HAVE to accept Mob Mentality because its an actual psychological phenomenon that exists and has always existed. It's HUMAN NATURE. We can guard against it, we can choose not to succumb to it ourselves with extreme exertions of will, we can advise against it... but no amount of wishing will ever stop mob's from forming. They will continue to happen whenever and wherever enough people with a common grievance or emotional state come together.

But bear with me.

It's NOT good. Mob violence is an ugly ugly thing. I'm not saying you have to accept Mob Mentality exists THEREFORE don't speak out against it... But it HAS to be separated from the CAUSE when analyzing repercussions and considering punishment. Perhaps more important than anything here is that we must accept that valid reasoning for protests do not become INVALID because our primitive monkey brained instincts are taken over to Mob violence. You can repremend the violence without using that violence to invalidate the thing that created it... each time you ignore the cause of violence you risk the next time being worse. It's not an equal sum game. Tit for tat doesn't always work. Punishing a crime isn't invariably prevention of said crime. The real villain's here are the mindset that these protests are an over reaction that we must combat... or else the urge to DISMISS, by association of violence, that the cause is invalid or nonexistent... because doing so virtually guarantees the continuation of division, disquiet, and violence.

Speak out against the violence, call for it to stop... but don't use that as a platform to tell people that their lives are actually better than they think they are. You are not those people, you aren't living their lives. The only measurement by which you have to equate what their lives are in comparison to yours is that they are motivated to scream their grievances en masse in the streets during a WORLDWIDE pandemic and you are not.

It's not wrong to feel safe. It's not wrong to want to remain safe. It's not wrong to be incapable to do something for those who don't feel safe... and therefore to feel as though you need to separate yourself from thinking too hard about it...............
but there's no reason whatsoever to tell people who don't feel safe that they are wrong... it costs you nothing to say 'you should be able to feel safe' and simply not STAND IN THE WAY of their efforts to feel safe again.

I disagree the protests are an overaction. For those that are doing for the so called reason which is George Floyd's death.

Sorry but the police involved were charged very quickly and the lie of police brutality and targeting is just that.

The notion of defunding police are done by people who don't care about how many people would be killed or women raped by no police being available

In philosophy, we are taught something called "the principle of charity." That is, for any argument one encounters, if there is any ambiguity in its meaning, give it the benefit of the doubt and assume the strongest, most defensible version of the argument before you engage with it or argue against it.

So let's say I encounter someone who says "defund the police." Oo-er. That certainly sounds a bit skew-whiff. The police are an absolutely essential service. So maybe they mean either "get rid of the police" or "reduce the budgets of the police." Well, the former would be absurd, so I must assume they mean the latter.

Alright, so they want to reduce the budget of the police. Well, that doesn't sound like a great idea either. The police do a lot of stuff. They deal with drug users, drug dealers, thieves, carjackers, child abusers, murderers, rapists, illegal immigrants, terrorists, prospective terrorists, traffic violations, pawn shops, gambling, smuggling, kidnapping, modern slavery - the list goes on and on. So what can people saying "defund the police" possibly mean? Do they just want these crimes to go unopposed?

Well, that's pretty silly as well. I can't think of an intelligent person who'd really be happy just to let these crimes happen. Perhaps it's a question of how to deal with them. Maybe they think the state should try to deal with crime in other ways than just arresting people and tossing them in prison. After all, humanitarian issues aside, arresting, trying, convicting and imprisoning a person is very expensive. Maybe people saying "defund the police" want the money gained from defunding the police to be invested into education (since educated people commit far fewer crimes) drug rehabilitation (much like the provably successful program of treating drug addiction as a disease and not just as criminality in Portugal) and perhaps even - although this is, admittedly, a bit more pie in the sky - a foreign policy which might help to improve the conditions in other nations and discourage illegal immigration with the carrot, rather than the stick.

And maybe they don't even want to reduce police numbers. Maybe they want the police to stop spending in vast quantities on high-end tactical gear and military style trying, which consumes a large portion of police budgets, partly because of the still-theoretically-ongoing war on terror. That seems reasonable if you could show that such spending was unnecessary, or could be made unnecessary with different domestic policy.

Okay, so now I think I have a more plausible understanding of what people saying "defund the police" want. Certainly it's a lot more plausible than "they just don't care about rapists, murderers etc.".

Now here's the beauty part. Everything I have just said, all the stuff about what you would do with money gained from defunding the police, etc etc: you could still disagree with all of it. Having a more nuanced understanding of an opponent's position means that you can actually understand how properly to argue against it. Let's imagine I'm arguing with someone who thinks the police should be defunded, and I call them an anarchist and say they don't care about rapists and murderers.

Do I now stand any chance of convincing this person that they're wrong? No. Even if you're right - especially if you're right - if you dismiss people's positions in this way then you will never, ever persuade anyone to agree with you. But if you properly understand the specifics of what your opponent is arguing and claiming then you know which relevant data you could use to support your counter-arguments. Like if I say that treating drug-abuse like an addiction instead of criminalising it is a good thing, that's a sufficiently specific claim that - if it's wrong - you could find data to show it's wrong.

[tallyho]

In Hong Kong in prior incidents, you had Chinese government agents agitating peaceful protest to justify hard crack downs on protestors.

Given you have had unidentified federal agencies bundling your citizenry into unmarked cars (at least now after the initial outcry they are identifiable as Federal agents, rather than random gangs of kidnappers), I would say under this regime you are a whisker away from that, if it hasn't happened already.

Barr is a Trump puppet. Mueller cited 10 instances of obstruction of Justice and explicitly said the report does not exonerate Trump. (Let's not forget his 'witch hunt' caught 38 real witches.) . Barr's watered down release was a farce. Have any of those 10 instances been acted upon 18 months later? He will do whatever Trump tells him to.
On that basis expect further instances of excessive force on peaceful protest.

The fact Barr defended the use of force for Trump to go and be photographed with the Bible (or as Trump probably thought it, book 37818, as he looked at it as if he didn't know what the hell it was that he was holding in his tiny hand, ) was despicable.

For Barr to split hairs over smoke cannisters and pepper balls being used over claims it was tear gas without addressing the question of WHY such force was used was a new low for your nation.

I don't agree with any rioting or mob rule, be it over police custody deaths, statues or anything else short of protesting a fascist regime.(and even then burning down shops and cars isn't really attacking the regime)

Given all the unrest at home the best way to unite a nation historically has always been to pick a small war abroad. Wouldn't be surprised if your jets are sent in against someone over next 30-40 days. It will be someone small, possibly someone you didn't even consider a problem, and someone who won't have a lot to fight back with.

Then he can appeal for unity, brand protests as unpatriotic and play as the strong man to his base. It won't make the problem go away but it will deflect attention. Its what he has always done for 4 years. No scandal is ever seen through to its conclusion before the next scandal sweeps it from the headlines.

These are worrying times for you as a nation and the free world in general.

[Dazzle1]

In Hong Kong in prior incidents, you had Chinese government agents agitating peaceful protest to justify hard crack downs on protestors.

Given you have had unidentified federal agencies bundling your citizenry into unmarked cars (at least now after the initial outcry they are identifiable as Federal agents, rather than random gangs of kidnappers), I would say under this regime you are a whisker away from that, if it hasn't happened already.

Barr is a Trump puppet. Mueller cited 10 instances of obstruction of Justice and explicitly said the report does not exonerate Trump. (Let's not forget his 'witch hunt' caught 38 real witches.) . Barr's watered down release was a farce. Have any of those 10 instances been acted upon 18 months later? He will do whatever Trump tells him to.
On that basis expect further instances of excessive force on peaceful protest.

The fact Barr defended the use of force for Trump to go and be photographed with the Bible (or as Trump probably thought it, book 37818, as he looked at it as if he didn't know what the hell it was that he was holding in his tiny hand, ) was despicable.

For Barr to split hairs over smoke cannisters and pepper balls being used over claims it was tear gas without addressing the question of WHY such force was used was a new low for your nation.

I don't agree with any rioting or mob rule, be it over police custody deaths, statues or anything else short of protesting a fascist regime.(and even then burning down shops and cars isn't really attacking the regime)

Given all the unrest at home the best way to unite a nation historically has always been to pick a small war abroad. Wouldn't be surprised if your jets are sent in against someone over next 30-40 days. It will be someone small, possibly someone you didn't even consider a problem, and someone who won't have a lot to fight back with.

Then he can appeal for unity, brand protests as unpatriotic and play as the strong man to his base. It won't make the problem go away but it will deflect attention. Its what he has always done for 4 years. No scandal is ever seen through to its conclusion before the next scandal sweeps it from the headlines.

These are worrying times for you as a nation and the free world in general.

Barr is an ethical man, who made the Dems look like fools during their witch hunt.

I am sure the people in Portland and Seattle as well as the Seattle police chief were grateful and the local dems in charge would have let thier cities burn to the ground.

This is not a Trump praise, but to defend the big city mayors is wrong. They are far more responsible for the violence because they let domestic terrorists as well as the racists of BLM take over the streets

[Femina]

I disagree the protests are an overaction. For those that are doing for the so called reason which is George Floyd's death.

And the protests the last time it happened, and the time before that, and the time before THAT.

Notice a trend in protests/riots that occur after each of these police shootings? THEY'RE ESCALATING!

So you're policy of 'bah ignore it. It's an overreaction!' ISN'T WORKING.

Sorry but the police involved were charged very quickly and the lie of police brutality and targeting is just that.

That's because they had video of him slowly choking the man to death... SLOWLY. You get charged pretty quick when you have a video of your crime. That's got nothing at all to do with politics or agendas. It's just the regular old system doing its thing. Previous shootings took longer to punish or absolve the offending police officers.

The notion of defunding police are done by people who don't care about how many people would be killed or women raped by no police being available

....................... I don't feel the need to validate this with an argument.. Suffice it to say. That's silly, people always care about people getting killed, or haven't you noticed the riots happening over the shooting? (People DON'T care about women being raped, or at least they traditionally haven't. When you've historically got schools covering rape up so that their can keep football players in the season or actors/producers etc. allowed to cast the couch at will it indicates a distinct lack of concern. It's only fairly recently that we've begun to crack down on this issue, and surprise surprise 'silence' about the issue did it no favors. Probably should have rioted about it a few more times and maybe the victims might have been heard earlier than this)

Anyway... you don't like cancel culture? Afraid it's now too easy to cry wolf and have someone torn off their pedestal? Then we probably shouldn't have ignored the issues to their breaking point. The LONGER YOU IGNORE IT, the longer you take to properly address it, the worse the reaction becomes. They're like big gaping wounds in that way.

[Dazzle1]

I disagree the protests are an overaction. For those that are doing for the so called reason which is George Floyd's death.

And the protests the last time it happened, and the time before that, and the time before THAT.

Notice a trend in protests/riots that occur after each of these police shootings? THEY'RE ESCALATING!

So you're policy of 'bah ignore it. It's an overreaction!' ISN'T WORKING.

Sorry but the police involved were charged very quickly and the lie of police brutality and targeting is just that.

That's because they had video of him slowly choking the man to death... SLOWLY. You get charged pretty quick when you have a video of your crime. That's got nothing at all to do with politics or agendas. It's just the regular old system doing its thing. Previous shootings took longer to punish or absolve the offending police officers.

The notion of defunding police are done by people who don't care about how many people would be killed or women raped by no police being available

....................... I don't feel the need to validate this with an argument.. Suffice it to say. That's silly, people always care about people getting killed, or haven't you noticed the riots happening over the shooting? (People DON'T care about women being raped, or at least they traditionally haven't. When you've historically got schools covering rape up so that their can keep football players in the season or actors/producers etc. allowed to cast the couch at will it indicates a distinct lack of concern. It's only fairly recently that we've begun to crack down on this issue, and surprise surprise 'silence' about the issue did it no favors. Probably should have rioted about it a few more times and maybe the victims might have been heard earlier than this)

Anyway... you don't like cancel culture? Afraid it's now too easy to cry wolf and have someone torn off their pedestal? Then we probably shouldn't have ignored the issues to their breaking point. The LONGER YOU IGNORE IT, the longer you take to properly address it, the worse the reaction becomes. They're like big gaping wounds in that way.

I am not ignoring the issue. I disagree there is a major problem. 1 is too many

But remember we also have in the colleges many false accusation of sexual assault

That is why BetsyDeVos had to correct the kangaroo courts implemented by Obama , that presume guilt.

Just as Keisha Bottoms and he AG have falsely accused the police officer in Atlanta

[Damselbinder]

I disagree the protests are an overaction. For those that are doing for the so called reason which is George Floyd's death.

And the protests the last time it happened, and the time before that, and the time before THAT.

Notice a trend in protests/riots that occur after each of these police shootings? THEY'RE ESCALATING!

So you're policy of 'bah ignore it. It's an overreaction!' ISN'T WORKING.

Sorry but the police involved were charged very quickly and the lie of police brutality and targeting is just that.

That's because they had video of him slowly choking the man to death... SLOWLY. You get charged pretty quick when you have a video of your crime. That's got nothing at all to do with politics or agendas. It's just the regular old system doing its thing. Previous shootings took longer to punish or absolve the offending police officers.

The notion of defunding police are done by people who don't care about how many people would be killed or women raped by no police being available

....................... I don't feel the need to validate this with an argument.. Suffice it to say. That's silly, people always care about people getting killed, or haven't you noticed the riots happening over the shooting? (People DON'T care about women being raped, or at least they traditionally haven't. When you've historically got schools covering rape up so that their can keep football players in the season or actors/producers etc. allowed to cast the couch at will it indicates a distinct lack of concern. It's only fairly recently that we've begun to crack down on this issue, and surprise surprise 'silence' about the issue did it no favors. Probably should have rioted about it a few more times and maybe the victims might have been heard earlier than this)

Anyway... you don't like cancel culture? Afraid it's now too easy to cry wolf and have someone torn off their pedestal? Then we probably shouldn't have ignored the issues to their breaking point. The LONGER YOU IGNORE IT, the longer you take to properly address it, the worse the reaction becomes. They're like big gaping wounds in that way.

I am not ignoring the issue. I disagree there is a major problem. 1 is too many

But remember we also have in the colleges many false accusation of sexual assault

That is why BetsyDeVos had to correct the kangaroo courts implemented by Obama , that presume guilt.

Just as Keisha Bottoms and he AG have falsely accused the police officer in Atlanta

Do me a favour, Dazzle. Explain your point here.

There are false accusations of sexual assault, therefore... what?

[tallyho]

Barr is an ethical man, who made the Dems look like fools during their witch hunt.

Yeah he made them look like fools for believing a Trump appointment would ever be impartial in prosecuting Trump


Justice Dept. Officials Outline Claims of Politicization Under Barr https://nyti.ms/3i0fL7a

Please explain to me why the very circumstances he was asked about at his appointment hearing are a crime except when Trump does it?




In case that doesn't play here is a screen grab

Screenshot_20200730-180452.png (757.81 KiB) Viewed 2998 times

So yes he is an ethical man unfortunately it's whatever ethics Trump tells him to have.

Please look at that and tell me the difference between the hypothetical question and the Stone reality?
Then tell me with a straight face that's not a case of one criminal protecting another and the head of the law of the land letting them both get away with it as one of them is his boss.

[bushwackerbob]

The dem dicks on the committee balked at even giving him a bathroom break. I would have filled their glasses of water with an altogether different liquid component.

[tallyho]

The dem dicks on the committee balked at even giving him a bathroom break. I would have filled their glasses of water with an altogether different liquid component.

Well he had avoided them for a year with ' I'm too busy'. He should know hearings don't like to be treated with contempt, erhical man that he is.

[Femina]

I am not ignoring the issue. I disagree there is a major problem. 1 is too many

But remember we also have in the colleges many false accusation of sexual assault

One is too many what? One false accusation of sexual assault? One Sexual assault? One shooting? One Riot? One bribe? One Lie? One life?

You aren't actually defending victims of wrongful accusations with 'One is too many' you defending crime a whole lot more. If one false accusation is too many, therefore absolutely do nothing... than one murder is too many so absolutely do SOMETHING. Absolutes are bullshit in this way.

One murder is far too many to protect by deciding that investigating one false accusation is also too many. If it's FALSE than you can hope that the system will prove it so (It won't ALWAYS... but such is the reality of living in a world full of imperfect people), but the answer isn't 'well false accusations happen so do nothing.'

I don't disagree that false accusations are bad. I abhor such things, but once again 'do nothing' is a stratagem with no value here.

[Dazzle1]

I am not ignoring the issue. I disagree there is a major problem. 1 is too many

But remember we also have in the colleges many false accusation of sexual assault

One is too many what? One false accusation of sexual assault? One Sexual assault? One shooting? One Riot? One bribe? One Lie? One life?

You aren't actually defending victims of wrongful accusations with 'One is too many' you defending crime a whole lot more. If one false accusation is too many, therefore absolutely do nothing... than one murder is too many so absolutely do SOMETHING. Absolutes are bullshit in this way.

One murder is far too many to protect by deciding that investigating one false accusation is also too many. If it's FALSE than you can hope that the system will prove it so (It won't ALWAYS... but such is the reality of living in a world full of imperfect people), but the answer isn't 'well false accusations happen so do nothing.'

I don't disagree that false accusations are bad. I abhor such things, but once again 'do nothing' is a stratagem with no value here.

What I and others are saying that the George Floyd situation almost never happens , there is no need for any reform The current procedures are sufficent. There is no need for diversity training or pc accountability boards subject to BLM directives.
These marchers still think Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin were victims

[tallyho]

But IS it rare, or is it just capturing it on video that's rare?

[Damselbinder]

I am not ignoring the issue. I disagree there is a major problem. 1 is too many

But remember we also have in the colleges many false accusation of sexual assault

One is too many what? One false accusation of sexual assault? One Sexual assault? One shooting? One Riot? One bribe? One Lie? One life?

You aren't actually defending victims of wrongful accusations with 'One is too many' you defending crime a whole lot more. If one false accusation is too many, therefore absolutely do nothing... than one murder is too many so absolutely do SOMETHING. Absolutes are bullshit in this way.

One murder is far too many to protect by deciding that investigating one false accusation is also too many. If it's FALSE than you can hope that the system will prove it so (It won't ALWAYS... but such is the reality of living in a world full of imperfect people), but the answer isn't 'well false accusations happen so do nothing.'

I don't disagree that false accusations are bad. I abhor such things, but once again 'do nothing' is a stratagem with no value here.

What I and others are saying that the George Floyd situation almost never happens , there is no need for any reform The current procedures are sufficent. There is no need for diversity training or pc accountability boards subject to BLM directives.
These marchers still think Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin were victims

Indeed, the situation with the two cases you mention is more complex than perhaps some people are willing to admit. However, as you well know, actual murders by policemen are by no means all that BLM protesters are protesting about, but a general, serious bias against people of colour by members of law enforcement, and of the criminal justice system generally.

Here is an article with a fair amount of evidence that the current procedures are not effective, and that US police have a serious racial bias against black citizens.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07 ... acial-bias

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/20 ... e-of-color

Here is some more. The last time I used data I was accused of "cherry picking", which appears to be the new way of just ignoring any evidence you don't like. This time, perhaps you can provide me with counter-evidence that might change my view.

By the way, I find your choice of language interesting. "BLM directives" makes the demands of the BLM movement sound unnecessarily sinister. I would also point out that at least 15 million people have participated in these protests. Does that prove they are right? No. But it suggests pretty strongly that there is a problem of SOME kind, no?

[Dazzle1]

I am not ignoring the issue. I disagree there is a major problem. 1 is too many

But remember we also have in the colleges many false accusation of sexual assault

One is too many what? One false accusation of sexual assault? One Sexual assault? One shooting? One Riot? One bribe? One Lie? One life?

You aren't actually defending victims of wrongful accusations with 'One is too many' you defending crime a whole lot more. If one false accusation is too many, therefore absolutely do nothing... than one murder is too many so absolutely do SOMETHING. Absolutes are bullshit in this way.

One murder is far too many to protect by deciding that investigating one false accusation is also too many. If it's FALSE than you can hope that the system will prove it so (It won't ALWAYS... but such is the reality of living in a world full of imperfect people), but the answer isn't 'well false accusations happen so do nothing.'

I don't disagree that false accusations are bad. I abhor such things, but once again 'do nothing' is a stratagem with no value here.

What I and others are saying that the George Floyd situation almost never happens , there is no need for any reform The current procedures are sufficent. There is no need for diversity training or pc accountability boards subject to BLM directives.
These marchers still think Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin were victims

Indeed, the situation with the two cases you mention is more complex than perhaps some people are willing to admit. However, as you well know, actual murders by policemen are by no means all that BLM protesters are protesting about, but a general, serious bias against people of colour by members of law enforcement, and of the criminal justice system generally.

Here is an article with a fair amount of evidence that the current procedures are not effective, and that US police have a serious racial bias against black citizens.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07 ... acial-bias

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/20 ... e-of-color

Here is some more. The last time I used data I was accused of "cherry picking", which appears to be the new way of just ignoring any evidence you don't like. This time, perhaps you can provide me with counter-evidence that might change my view.

By the way, I find your choice of language interesting. "BLM directives" makes the demands of the BLM movement sound unnecessarily sinister. I would also point out that at least 15 million people have participated in these protests. Does that prove they are right? No. But it suggests pretty strongly that there is a problem of SOME kind, no?

Here is the WSJ study article https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-police- ... 1592952420

I give you an example in Mass, the state senate passed a bill with a lot of restriction and new procedures for police, the public and police advocates were not given an oppurtunity to comment but BLM was given the floor to make their demands. Likewise you can put a BLM banner up but not an inclusive All Lives Matter one up

[Damselbinder]

1) You linked an article behind a paywall.

2) I went looking myself and the only data I could find which even vaguely suggested that there ISN'T racial bias in police was from 2019, and is talked about here:
https://retractionwatch.com/2020/05/04/ ... f-measure/

Essentially the data was almost useless, because it was testing for how likely police of different races were to shoot civilians of different races, but only included fatalities in its data, meaning that there was no way of knowing how many chances to shoot there were that weren't taken, i.e. how many times the officers in question encountered minority citizens non-fatally.

3) Alright. Alright.


Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalright.

Fine. We're gonna do the All Lives Matter thing? Fine. Fine I'll do this.

Why do people have a problem with "all lives matter"? Because the implication behind "all lives matter" is "shut up people who think there's systemic racism in your society, your grievances are imaginary." The meaning behind "black lives matter" isn't "ONLY black lives matter". There's an implied 'too' at the end of it. The whole point is "despite the generally recognised principle that yes all lives matter, black lives are all too frequently treated as if they don't by various instruments of state - so we are reminding you that black lives - which are too often treated as not mattering - do in fact matter."

Unfortunately "dtgrptyalmblaatftaitdbviosswarytblwatotanmdifm" isn't a very catchy initialism.

[Dazzle1]

1) You linked an article behind a paywall.

2) I went looking myself and the only data I could find which even vaguely suggested that there ISN'T racial bias in police was from 2019, and is talked about here:
https://retractionwatch.com/2020/05/04/ ... f-measure/

Essentially the data was almost useless, because it was testing for how likely police of different races were to shoot civilians of different races, but only included fatalities in its data, meaning that there was no way of knowing how many chances to shoot there were that weren't taken, i.e. how many times the officers in question encountered minority citizens non-fatally.

3) Alright. Alright.


Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalright.

Fine. We're gonna do the All Lives Matter thing? Fine. Fine I'll do this.

Why do people have a problem with "all lives matter"? Because the implication behind "all lives matter" is "shut up people who think there's systemic racism in your society, your grievances are imaginary." The meaning behind "black lives matter" isn't "ONLY black lives matter". There's an implied 'too' at the end of it. The whole point is "despite the generally recognised principle that yes all lives matter, black lives are all too frequently treated as if they don't by various instruments of state - so we are reminding you that black lives - which are too often treated as not mattering - do in fact matter."

Unfortunately "dtgrptyalmblaatftaitdbviosswarytblwatotanmdifm" isn't a very catchy initialism.

No that is the narrative BLM gives when the inclusive All Lives Matter is said

There is racism in the U.S yes but not just towards African Americans. But there is no systemic racism in the U.S towards African American that is a lie!

[Damselbinder]

I didn't need a narrative. I was able to come up with that all on my own. I'm not a black American. I'm a white, Jewish, Englishman. Again, the language you choose is dismissive. "It's a narrative." No it isn't, it's how people - millions of actual people - are reacting to it.

And frankly, you've just proved my point with staggering effectiveness yourself. I said the "all lives matter" slogan was used by people who wanted to say that there was no systemic racism in America. And what did you reply?

"No, All Lives Matter is an inclusive slogan! There is no systemic racism in the U.S. towards African Americans that is a lie!"

...need I go on?

[bushwackerbob]

Is it possible to believe in the BLM movement, to believe in the tenets of what they stand for and trying to achieve through raising awareness for its causes and also believe that all lives matter and embrace that slogan as all inclusive as well. It's not one or the other in my view. It's amazing to me how much some people lose their shit when you say all lives matter, as if one is using the ugly and filthy N word or as if using the all lives matter slogan somehow diminishes the worthy and important BLM slogan and are automatically against what BLM stands for. When we had the Boston Marathon bombing, the slogan Boston Strong appeared soon thereafter. Later on when Las Vegas had that terrible concert shooting and the term Vegas Strong appeared, it did not in any way diminish the Boston strong thing. I do not feel that BLM and all lives matter are mutually exclusive thought processes. Does the fact that I have a blue lives matter t-shirt make me a bad person, someone who is insensitive to the plight of minorities? Sometimes I feel like the world is overly obsessed with symbols and labels and not the true meaning behind these symbols and labels. There was a college professor up here in Boston who intended to say black lives matter in a speech or e-mail (I can't remember which) and inadvertently said all lives matter. My god, you would have thought the woman put on black face and put a cross in front of her lawn, there were calls for her to be fired immediately and she was savagely attacked in many quarters for her slip up, even as she profusely apologized for her slip of the tongue. This is the world we live in today.

[Bert]

Is it possible to believe in the BLM movement, to believe in the tenets of what they stand for and trying to achieve through raising awareness for its causes and also believe that all lives matter and embrace that slogan as all inclusive as well.

Is it possible? Yes. Is it righteous? No. The phrase "Black Lives Matter" is a cry for justice from a minority group that has suffered in America for hundreds of years. The phrase "All Lives Matter" is a Trojan horse, a "fair" sounding statement that is actually meaningless in reality, but the intent of it is to blunt or counteract the power of the statement on which it is based. It gives the white majority an honorable sounding slogan, but what does it really mean? No sensible person could disagree with the sentiment that all lives matter. But saying it as a slogan, outside of the BLM movement, is absurd. It's akin to saying "Sunshine is Bright", or "Morgan Freeman has a great voice". No, "All Lives Matter" as a slogan exists purely to refute the extremely credible but uncomfortable phrase "Black Lives Matter". That's why "All Lives Matter" was printed in huge letters on Trump's campaign bus in 2016.

[bushwackerbob]

Is it possible to believe in the BLM movement, to believe in the tenets of what they stand for and trying to achieve through raising awareness for its causes and also believe that all lives matter and embrace that slogan as all inclusive as well.

Is it possible? Yes. Is it righteous? No. The phrase "Black Lives Matter" is a cry for justice from a minority group that has suffered in America for hundreds of years. The phrase "All Lives Matter" is a Trojan horse, a "fair" sounding statement that is actually meaningless in reality, but the intent of it is to blunt or counteract the power of the statement on which it is based. It gives the white majority an honorable sounding slogan, but what does it really mean? No sensible person could disagree with the sentiment that all lives matter. But saying it as a slogan, outside of the BLM movement, is absurd. It's akin to saying "Sunshine is Bright", or "Morgan Freeman has a great voice". No, "All Lives Matter" as a slogan exists purely to refute the extremely credible but uncomfortable phrase "Black Lives Matter". That's why "All Lives Matter" was printed in huge letters on Trump's campaign bus in 2016.

But sunshine is bright, Morgan Freeman does have a great voice, and all lives do matter. OK, I feel better now that a huge crater has not opened up at the center of the earth and swallowed me whole to denote the end of the world. Who's to judge "righteousness" anyway, the Twitterverse, Facebook, three guys having an ice cream on their back step. Righteousness? Talk about a subjective word. OK, you got me, there are those who use all lives matter (ALM) who are clearly not down with the cause, but there are also guys like me who have a stubborn anti authoritarian streak, a sort of counter cultural attitude, people who are sympathetic to the BLM cause but with that anti authoritarian thing chafe at this PC culture that has been sent down to us regular folk from the ivory tower elites. I inherently resist when anybody starts making "rules" to impose upon me on what type of language is appropriate and what is not. I am a grown ass man, an adult who does not appreciate being lectured to (don't mean you Bert) about how to speak in a PC world, so yes, damn it, all lives do matter. Furthermore, how does anyone know what is in another person's heart, perhaps the people saying ALM are like me and also support the efforts of BLM. It's kind of like the fact that there are some leaders in the BLM movement that are socialist commies or anti-semites, but I do not assume the whole leadership of the BLM consists of commies and anti-semitic a-holes, that would be a precipitous judgment to make in my view. I think it wise not to judge a book by it's cover and furthermore assume that when people say one thing, perhaps they don't mean it in the way you interpret it. The sunshine is bright.

[Damselbinder]

If you're just going to say "oh it's subjective" then you've basically given up having any kind of ethical debate at all. Language, all language, is based on context and cultural history, and has more meaning than its sheer literality. Let's not use "black lives matter" for a moment. Lets use an ethnic slur. Please forgive me for the fact that I am about to use one: for the purposes of the example I've chosen "Jap."

I am not an American. The slur I'm using principally got its current connotations in America, during WW2. It was - and still is, I suppose - used derogatorily of Japanese people. It is racist. However, in England, though the term was used, the sense was much more of just a contraction. So let's say I take my merry old English arse over the pond to America, and I use the term "Jap."

People, I notice, do not like the fact that I use this term. Some get quite angry. I explain that I am English, and that where I come from the term doesn't have racist overtones. "Alright," people say, "that's fair enough I guess, but could you please not do it again?" And I say "no."

"What the fuck," people reply. "Why?"
"Because I inherently resist when anybody starts making 'rules' to impose upon me on what type of language is appropriate and what is not. I am a a grown ass man, an adult who does not appreciate being lectured to about how to speak in a PC world. Furthermore, how does anyone know what is in my heart, or the heart of anyone using the term 'Jap'? They really might just mean 'Japanese person'!"

The meaning of words is, and always will be, determined exclusively by people who use them. If you ignore the cultural context and implication of the language you use, and try - somehow - to divorce those things from language itself, then you've basically given up on language having any power at all. Yes, the words "all lives matter" are in themselves innocuous. Obviously. But the slogan has been co-opted by people who use it to mean, as I said before, "the grievances of racial minorities are imaginary: everything should stay exactly how it is." Does that mean that if you used the words "you know, I really believe all lives matter" in a conversation, that would necessarily be taken badly? No. But don't expect people to like it if you put it on a bumper sticker.

[Femina]

"All Lives Matter" AS USED right now is dismissive. It's used to undercut. Like when a person who feels marginalized and ignored says "Hey I matter..." say, at a Poker Table consisting of nothing else but guys targeting the new guy to wipe him out, they snigger and go 'All Lives Matter buuuuuuddy."

All Lives Matter isn't a platform. It isn't a slogan that needs saying because It's obvious. It's the grand hope. It's the great end. The GOAL. When EVERY ethnicity, gender, and social group become under threat by every single other ethnicity, gender and social group THEN 'All Lives Matter' might be a potential necessary rallying cry......... It's not.

As it is, 'All Lives Matter' is used as RETALIATION to 'BLM' and anything used in retaliation to something invariably undercuts itself. Its not neutral. It's targeted.

In other words. What 'All Lives Matter' as used in retaliation to 'BLM' actually means is 'All Lives Matter... but Black Lives a little less'

If you REALLY believe that All Lives Matter, than it wouldn't upset you that some people were calling out 'Black Lives Matter' because you'd naturally respond 'well of course they do' and feel no need to 'correct' them. When you smirk your smug smile and drop an ALM from the safety of your house and quarantine to somebody screaming BLM motivated to stand outside waving a sign and risking a fucking plague. What you're basically saying is 'not as much as you think'.

Or in other words........ It's SMUDGED! We SMUDGED it! We took something beautiful, and twisted it around to mean something its not... Mother SMUDGERS!

Guess I'm gonna need to go resurrect my Smudging thread.

[Bert]

Dammit girl, I'm straight up in love with your brain.

[tallyho]

[Dazzle1]

"All Lives Matter" AS USED right now is dismissive. It's used to undercut. Like when a person who feels marginalized and ignored says "Hey I matter..." say, at a Poker Table consisting of nothing else but guys targeting the new guy to wipe him out, they snigger and go 'All Lives Matter buuuuuuddy."

All Lives Matter isn't a platform. It isn't a slogan that needs saying because It's obvious. It's the grand hope. It's the great end. The GOAL. When EVERY ethnicity, gender, and social group become under threat by every single other ethnicity, gender and social group THEN 'All Lives Matter' might be a potential necessary rallying cry......... It's not.

As it is, 'All Lives Matter' is used as RETALIATION to 'BLM' and anything used in retaliation to something invariably undercuts itself. Its not neutral. It's targeted.

In other words. What 'All Lives Matter' as used in retaliation to 'BLM' actually means is 'All Lives Matter... but Black Lives a little less'

If you REALLY believe that All Lives Matter, than it wouldn't upset you that some people were calling out 'Black Lives Matter' because you'd naturally respond 'well of course they do' and feel no need to 'correct' them. When you smirk your smug smile and drop an ALM from the safety of your house and quarantine to somebody screaming BLM motivated to stand outside waving a sign and risking a fucking plague. What you're basically saying is 'not as much as you think'.

Or in other words........ It's SMUDGED! We SMUDGED it! We took something beautiful, and twisted it around to mean something its not... Mother SMUDGERS!

Guess I'm gonna need to go resurrect my Smudging thread.

I disagree, we see it as inclusive

Part of it is we don't buy the systemic racism argument and we see a lot of hate and racism from BLM reps like Hawk Newsome
not to mention violence

Sorry if this offends BLM supporters but as a Jew I endure far more racism than African Americans yet we don't organize hate rallies or make demands for special privlieges.

[Damselbinder]

"All Lives Matter" AS USED right now is dismissive. It's used to undercut. Like when a person who feels marginalized and ignored says "Hey I matter..." say, at a Poker Table consisting of nothing else but guys targeting the new guy to wipe him out, they snigger and go 'All Lives Matter buuuuuuddy."

All Lives Matter isn't a platform. It isn't a slogan that needs saying because It's obvious. It's the grand hope. It's the great end. The GOAL. When EVERY ethnicity, gender, and social group become under threat by every single other ethnicity, gender and social group THEN 'All Lives Matter' might be a potential necessary rallying cry......... It's not.

As it is, 'All Lives Matter' is used as RETALIATION to 'BLM' and anything used in retaliation to something invariably undercuts itself. Its not neutral. It's targeted.

In other words. What 'All Lives Matter' as used in retaliation to 'BLM' actually means is 'All Lives Matter... but Black Lives a little less'

If you REALLY believe that All Lives Matter, than it wouldn't upset you that some people were calling out 'Black Lives Matter' because you'd naturally respond 'well of course they do' and feel no need to 'correct' them. When you smirk your smug smile and drop an ALM from the safety of your house and quarantine to somebody screaming BLM motivated to stand outside waving a sign and risking a fucking plague. What you're basically saying is 'not as much as you think'.

Or in other words........ It's SMUDGED! We SMUDGED it! We took something beautiful, and twisted it around to mean something its not... Mother SMUDGERS!

Guess I'm gonna need to go resurrect my Smudging thread.

I disagree, we see it as inclusive

Part of it is we don't buy the systemic racism argument and we see a lot of hate and racism from BLM reps like Hawk Newsome
not to mention violence

Sorry if this offends BLM supporters but as a Jew I endure far more racism than African Americans yet we don't organize hate rallies or make demands for special privlieges.

Dazzle, we got a country.

[Dazzle1]

"All Lives Matter" AS USED right now is dismissive. It's used to undercut. Like when a person who feels marginalized and ignored says "Hey I matter..." say, at a Poker Table consisting of nothing else but guys targeting the new guy to wipe him out, they snigger and go 'All Lives Matter buuuuuuddy."

All Lives Matter isn't a platform. It isn't a slogan that needs saying because It's obvious. It's the grand hope. It's the great end. The GOAL. When EVERY ethnicity, gender, and social group become under threat by every single other ethnicity, gender and social group THEN 'All Lives Matter' might be a potential necessary rallying cry......... It's not.

As it is, 'All Lives Matter' is used as RETALIATION to 'BLM' and anything used in retaliation to something invariably undercuts itself. Its not neutral. It's targeted.

In other words. What 'All Lives Matter' as used in retaliation to 'BLM' actually means is 'All Lives Matter... but Black Lives a little less'

If you REALLY believe that All Lives Matter, than it wouldn't upset you that some people were calling out 'Black Lives Matter' because you'd naturally respond 'well of course they do' and feel no need to 'correct' them. When you smirk your smug smile and drop an ALM from the safety of your house and quarantine to somebody screaming BLM motivated to stand outside waving a sign and risking a fucking plague. What you're basically saying is 'not as much as you think'.

Or in other words........ It's SMUDGED! We SMUDGED it! We took something beautiful, and twisted it around to mean something its not... Mother SMUDGERS!

Guess I'm gonna need to go resurrect my Smudging thread.

I disagree, we see it as inclusive

Part of it is we don't buy the systemic racism argument and we see a lot of hate and racism from BLM reps like Hawk Newsome
not to mention violence

Sorry if this offends BLM supporters but as a Jew I endure far more racism than African Americans yet we don't organize hate rallies or make demands for special privlieges.

Dazzle, we got a country.

Israel is a secular country if that is what you are referring to.

Let me ask you if there were any racist in congress as vile as the Squad would they be welcomed by either party. Would a KKK member be welcome by the Dems as Al sharpton is?

[bushwackerbob]

If you're just going to say "oh it's subjective" then you've basically given up having any kind of ethical debate at all. Language, all language, is based on context and cultural history, and has more meaning than its sheer literality. Let's not use "black lives matter" for a moment. Lets use an ethnic slur. Please forgive me for the fact that I am about to use one: for the purposes of the example I've chosen "Jap."

I am not an American. The slur I'm using principally got its current connotations in America, during WW2. It was - and still is, I suppose - used derogatorily of Japanese people. It is racist. However, in England, though the term was used, the sense was much more of just a contraction. So let's say I take my merry old English arse over the pond to America, and I use the term "Jap."

People, I notice, do not like the fact that I use this term. Some get quite angry. I explain that I am English, and that where I come from the term doesn't have racist overtones. "Alright," people say, "that's fair enough I guess, but could you please not do it again?" And I say "no."

"What the fuck," people reply. "Why?"
"Because I inherently resist when anybody starts making 'rules' to impose upon me on what type of language is appropriate and what is not. I am a a grown ass man, an adult who does not appreciate being lectured to about how to speak in a PC world. Furthermore, how does anyone know what is in my heart, or the heart of anyone using the term 'Jap'? They really might just mean 'Japanese person'!"

The meaning of words is, and always will be, determined exclusively by people who use them. If you ignore the cultural context and implication of the language you use, and try - somehow - to divorce those things from language itself, then you've basically given up on language having any power at all. Yes, the words "all lives matter" are in themselves innocuous. Obviously. But the slogan has been co-opted by people who use it to mean, as I said before, "the grievances of racial minorities are imaginary: everything should stay exactly how it is." Does that mean that if you used the words "you know, I really believe all lives matter" in a conversation, that would necessarily be taken badly? No. But don't expect people to like it if you put it on a bumper sticker.

This kind of ethical debate, and the use of the word "righteousness" reminds me of the nineties when far right conservatives in my country pandered to some of their base by preaching and repeating the phrase "family values". I always rolled my eyes when I heard that phrase for what I knew what they truly meant by that phrase: They wanted to impose their idea of morality and proper behavior on everybody else. Liberals, quite right in my view pushed back on that narrow definition of family values with the idea of "what gives you the right to impose your morality on everybody else"? Damn straight. Who elected these politicians as ultimate arbiters of what is morally acceptable and what is not? My anti authoritarian counter cultural mindset rejected that judgmental, non inclusive bullshit morality play. I feel this PC cultural word police is the other side of that same coin. Who decides what these words mean? College professors at elite universities? BLM leaders who may or may not have anti-semitic, Socialist, or Communist leanings? The Twitterverse? Facebook? The social media mob? I must have missed conventional wisdom/righteous language police election day because I did not get a vote. A wise man once said that "the meaning of words, is, and always will be, determined EXCLUSIVELY by the people who use them". Thanks for having my back buddy. And yes, I totally agree with you that the term ALM is innocuous and those with more than a thimble for a brain will recognize that the articulation of ALM does not diminish the BLM in any discernable way, that the movement is too powerful to be diminished by someone uttering ALM. I just read in the latest issue of Vanity Fair that the formerly innocuous OK sign you make with the thumb meeting the index finger with three fingers splayed is now seen in some quarters as a symbol of white power. Are the PC language police going to cancel the word OK next, is it an endangered word? This is the crazy world in which we now live.

[Damselbinder]

I believe I was accused of "cherry picking" statistics in a previous argument. Now I'm seeing people cherry pick sentences from paragraphs. I followed that sentence you quoted by pointing out that "the people who use them" in this case, are people who use this term in the way I have suggested. Those are "the people" to whom I was referring. You sort of rearranged some of the words a bit, but effectively nothing you said there was anything more than another denial that the expression is used widely in the way I have suggested. Which it is. They, alas, are the ones deciding what the words mean, by continually using it in the way I have talked about until the term is tainted.

I also suggest that you've missed the point of the argument about the phrase "family values." In fact I rather think that the comparison proves the exact opposite of what you seem to believe.

We have an innocuous series of words which, absent any cultural context, are not remotely insulting, hurtful, or offensive. However, because of a political context in which the words are repeatedly, deliberately used (to not-so-subtly imply something other than their literal definition) they take on another meaning. It is the smuggling in of ideas with the use of innocuous words (providing a kind of semantic version of plausible deniability) that is what people object to when they object to people using the term "family values" in the manner you describe. You are reasoning by analogy, which is not necessarily bad, but your analogy is faulty.

I know what it is supposed to be. Let's do some good old schoolboy verbal reasoning:
"'Conservatives using the term "family values"' are to 'people in the BLM movement ascribing "all lives matter" with an offensive meaning' as 'Democrat politicians objecting to the use of the term 'family values'' are to 'people who think "all lives matter" is innocuous.

And when we put it like this, we see the error: where I said the BLM movement was 'ascribing' meaning. They're not ascribing anything. They - and others - are just noticing. It's not as if the BLM movement all decided one day that "all lives matter" is offensive. Rather, they identified (because it's relatively obvious) that the slogan is being used in this way by people trying to assert that the grievances of racial minorities are imaginary. It's THOSE people using this innocuous-sounding phrase as an unsubtle dogwhistle who are the ones who've given this term it's current meaning.

And, finally, just to make it obvious, the "well """I"""" don't mean it like that so no-one should be offended when I do" is exactly what I was trying to show was wrong with my racial slur example. But I'll make it even more obvious. Imagine I'm an alien and by sheer chance my alien word for "human with dark skin" sounds exactly like the n-word. And I get a bit confused when I first hear the n-word in English, because I don't get it's a slur. So I keep using it when I'm speaking English to humans. And people say:
"Dude, we know it's just an unfortunate coincidence and obviously if you were speaking your own language we wouldn't say anything, but since you're speaking to us in English, and you know we find it offensive, can you not use that word please?" If I said:
"No. I'll keep using it since """"I"""" don't mean anything offensive by it"

well - I think that would make me an asshole.

And that's the thing isn't it? I don't think anyone should be punished for using these terms. No-one should go to prison. No-one should be fired for accidentally saying it and then immediately, sincerely apologising for a slip of the tongue. It shouldn't be a crime.

But using offensive terms knowingly does make you an asshole.


Oh and Dazzle, the state of Israel was established as a Jewish state. It's in the Israeli declaration of independence. If you won't accept that then... I mean I don't know what to tell you.

[bushwackerbob]

I believe I was accused of "cherry picking" statistics in a previous argument. Now I'm seeing people cherry pick sentences from paragraphs. I followed that sentence you quoted by pointing out that "the people who use them" in this case, are people who use this term in the way I have suggested. Those are "the people" to whom I was referring. You sort of rearranged some of the words a bit, but effectively nothing you said there was anything more than another denial that the expression is used widely in the way I have suggested. Which it is. They, alas, are the ones deciding what the words mean, by continually using it in the way I have talked about until the term is tainted.

I also suggest that you've missed the point of the argument about the phrase "family values." In fact I rather think that the comparison proves the exact opposite of what you seem to believe.

We have an innocuous series of words which, absent any cultural context, are not remotely insulting, hurtful, or offensive. However, because of a political context in which the words are repeatedly, deliberately used (to not-so-subtly imply something other than their literal definition) they take on another meaning. It is the smuggling in of ideas with the use of innocuous words (providing a kind of semantic version of plausible deniability) that is what people object to when they object to people using the term "family values" in the manner you describe. You are reasoning by analogy, which is not necessarily bad, but your analogy is faulty.

I know what it is supposed to be. Let's do some good old schoolboy verbal reasoning:
"'Conservatives using the term "family values"' are to 'people in the BLM movement ascribing "all lives matter" with an offensive meaning' as 'Democrat politicians objecting to the use of the term 'family values'' are to 'people who think "all lives matter" is innocuous.

And when we put it like this, we see the error: where I said the BLM movement was 'ascribing' meaning. They're not ascribing anything. They - and others - are just noticing. It's not as if the BLM movement all decided one day that "all lives matter" is offensive. Rather, they identified (because it's relatively obvious) that the slogan is being used in this way by people trying to assert that the grievances of racial minorities are imaginary. It's THOSE people using this innocuous-sounding phrase as an unsubtle dogwhistle who are the ones who've given this term it's current meaning.

And, finally, just to make it obvious, the "well """I"""" don't mean it like that so no-one should be offended when I do" is exactly what I was trying to show was wrong with my racial slur example. But I'll make it even more obvious. Imagine I'm an alien and by sheer chance my alien word for "human with dark skin" sounds exactly like the n-word. And I get a bit confused when I first hear the n-word in English, because I don't get it's a slur. So I keep using it when I'm speaking English to humans. And people say:
"Dude, we know it's just an unfortunate coincidence and obviously if you were speaking your own language we wouldn't say anything, but since you're speaking to us in English, and you know we find it offensive, can you not use that word please?" If I said:
"No. I'll keep using it since """"I"""" don't mean anything offensive by it"

well - I think that would make me an asshole.

And that's the thing isn't it? I don't think anyone should be punished for using these terms. No-one should go to prison. No-one should be fired for accidentally saying it and then immediately, sincerely apologising for a slip of the tongue. It shouldn't be a crime.

But using offensive terms knowingly does make you an asshole.


Oh and Dazzle, the state of Israel was established as a Jewish state. It's in the Israeli declaration of independence. If you won't accept that then... I mean I don't know what to tell you.

Sorry, they are not just "noticing or ascribing" people who are saying ALM, they are trying to have them fired, trying to ruin their careers, cyber bullying them online, and general harassment. Try "noticing or ascribing to that poor professor here that accidentally used the ALM instead of BLM, then calls for her firing, then a massive apology with tears, that is what some of this massive PC culture thing comes down to, that people must be made to heel to the almighty unelected language police. Noticing and ascribing? Dude, you have no idea how far off base you are with that one. Using a term that is innocuous that others may connotate that has other meanings does not make me an asshole, it makes them guilty of making assumptions about people they do not know, kind of like looking at the color of one's skin and making certain assumptions based on race. I will not be made to heel to the whims and ideologies of the PC language police, I am not a lemming or sucker who will succumb to the conventional wisdom of people who do not know me and where I come from and what my life experiences are. If those people want to call me an asshole, so be it, but they too will be guilty of making assumptions based on incomplete information. Prejudice comes in many expected and unexpected forms. No one has dominion over me. The sunshine is bright.

[Damselbinder]

Okay I mean

I've now given two very clear, simple examples pointing out the flaws in that kind of thinking (recalcitrant Englishman and dumb alien), so I don't have more to say other than to refer you back to that.

[bushwackerbob]

I just don't subscribe to the rules of the PC language police so those two examples have nothing to do with me. I don't know who the fuck the "they" are who make up these arbitrary new connotations of words and phrases but I think the "they " are full of shit and spend too much time on the meaning of words instead of actually doing something for the cause. Trying to get people fired or hurt their careers or livelihood, and cyber bullying, does nothing to promote BLM. Talk about flawed thinking. Keyboard warriors is what "they" are, not SJW. "Ascribing and noticing", that line was unintentionally friggin hilarious.

[Damselbinder]

Unfortunately, I don't find your line of reasoning funny at all.

Riddle me this. What is offensive? What is something - outside of flat out calling for violence or murder which is, and should be, illegal - that a person could say which is, just in virtue of their saying it, immoral? I find it hard to believe that your answer would be "nothing".

If I'm right, then we're not actually arguing about the principle of whether saying certain things is immoral. We're just arguing about a particular case. That being so, your question has an obvious answer. The "they" who find "all lives matter" offensive is the same "they" that finds the "n-word" offensive, at least in principle. Now I know perfectly well that using the n-word is way, WAY more offensive than even what I think is true of "all lives matter." Even though I think you're wrong, I also think you're arguing in good faith. There is moral ambiguity about this term's meaning, in the way that there isn't for the n-word. So it's not a perfect comparison, by any means. Nevertheless, BLM is not some tiny little cabal of ivory tower elites. It is the largest social movement in your nation's history. Even if you think that the millions of people who would be offended by the use of the phrase "all lives matter" are wrong, they go far beyond oversensitive, screeching twitterati. They are people who are sick of having this issue which is dear to their hearts being blunted by disingenuous false equivalence. If you want to blame someone, blame the racist dog-whistlers who've been using "all lives matter" in the way I'm describing. I'm sorry they ruined it for you. But there we are.

[bushwackerbob]

I guess using your alien example, if you had dropped me in the middle of Alabama in the early 1800's, that I would be wrong for advocating the abolition of slavery, it might offend a few people. I find it funny in that you are minimizing the effects that people are saying ALM, that it is not just "noticing" these people. I guess you find that OK, oops, that word might be considered a white power word, sorry. There is a cultural meaning behind the use of an ethnic slur dating back to slavery my friend, whereas the backlash against a phrase ALM is a political thing, that the use of the phrase only 3 years ago would have went unnoticed and now, boom! It is a phrase put on par with the N word apparently. There are millions of people also who support the BLM but at the same time are tired of people constantly changing the rules of language, and that if one breaks those rules, they are deemed assholes, which is a damn lazy intellectual argument to make. The sunshine is bright.

[Damselbinder]

I could not possibly have made it any clearer that I wasn't putting it on par with the N-word.

By the way, here's an article about all lives matter which is 4 years old. It's behind a paywall, but the point is merely that it exists.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-blac ... ohiSrZSH28

Here's another one from 5 years ago
https://truthout.org/video/building-mov ... cia-garza/

Either way, I don't know why it surprises you that the expression isn't very old. The BLM movement isn't that old either.

[Dazzle1]

I could not possibly have made it any clearer that I wasn't putting it on par with the N-word.

By the way, here's an article about all lives matter which is 4 years old. It's behind a paywall, but the point is merely that it exists.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-blac ... ohiSrZSH28

Here's another one from 5 years ago
https://truthout.org/video/building-mov ... cia-garza/

Either way, I don't know why it surprises you that the expression isn't very old. The BLM movement isn't that old either.

I would not take anything from those two sources seriously.

Unlike the WSJ I did post.

You like many other have made yourself the arbiter of what is acceptible speech and terms

[Damselbinder]

If I were doing that, wouldn't I just be calling you an evil racist and demanding you be fired and all that sort of thing? As far as I can tell I haven't appointed myself the "arbiter" of anything. I have a view and I've been arguing for it. Even if I'm wrong, that's no different to what anyone in any argument does.

[bushwackerbob]

If I were doing that, wouldn't I just be calling you an evil racist and demanding you be fired and all that sort of thing? As far as I can tell I haven't appointed myself the "arbiter" of anything. I have a view and I've been arguing for it. Even if I'm wrong, that's no different to what anyone in any argument does.

Yes, you have a view. Anyone who utters ALM is an asshole, regardless of whether the asshole believes in the BLM. I would say you have moved into arbiter of the PC language police. Awfully judgmental, just like those Republican family values people in the nineties. Two sides of the same coin. I don't think for a minute that you would cyberbully or otherwise harass good and honest hard working people who might utter ALM, but your intransigence on the topic is an example of the attitude of those who actually live in my country who are more militant on the issue who give no quarter and leave no room for the possibility that good and decent people can disagree on the true meaning of words and phrases, people who try to punish others and threaten their livelihoods, attack their character online, "they" demand one either embraces BLM and disavows ALM, or one believes in ALM and is a racist asshole who is against BLM. Oh Damselbinder, the world doesn't work that way my friend, it is not so black and white, right or wrong, good and bad. This whole argument is part of a social media disease designed to pit one entity against another. ALM is just words strung together, words, not actions, words, not the senseless death of an unarmed black man by a bad cop. A bit of advice buddy. Don't sweat the small stuff, harmless words or phrases don't hurt the cause of BLM, not worth calling good people assholes just because they disagree with you about the true meaning of words and phrases. Let us stop weaponizing the English language because good people happen to disagree. What ever happened to let's agree to disagree? Is the judgment and the name calling really necessary?

[Bert]

Sorry if this offends BLM supporters but as a Jew I endure far more racism than African Americans yet we don't organize hate rallies or make demands for special privlieges.

I'd just like to point out that no one is ever going to "win" an argument against someone who will make and defend a statement like this. Best to let Dazzle1 hiss away like a birthday cake sparkler. Trying to blow it out won't work, so you just let it burn down until it stops.