Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
What causes politics? self serving corruption
Is this how it works for you? Because then your arguments all makes sense... it’s projection.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Tell me, does it makes sense to you that I ask you:1. Double_R, do me a favor2. I'm having a server issue3. I've talked to Henry4. I've been in your area, I see problems, there5. "We're getting things improved here, and. blah, blah, blah" you say6. You could talk to John7. You could talk to Bill8. I'm taking care of Julie.9. There's another thing...
Sorry, but I just couldn’t help but add how amusing this is - in order to defend Trump you literally have to argue that he’s such an idiot who cannot keep his thoughts straight that no one can tell what he’s talking about. The rest of us have been saying this for years, just look at any transcript of him trying to express a deep coherent thought without a teleprompter (and sometimes even with one). But when it comes to things he actually cares about he’s not as bad, like here where he tries to extort a foreign nation. If you cannot understand this conversation you cannot argue that he ever makes sense because this is as clear as he gets for him.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I literally took you sentence by sentence and explained to you how each sentence connected to the one before it, and all you have to say is “you just hate Trump”. Clearly you have never read the transcript and have no interest in understanding the conversation because your entire position depends on your not understanding it.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Wow. In your desperation to make 284 words seem like nine different topics of conversation you actually stooped so low as to pretend that Trump telling Zelenskyy he will have Rudy and Bill Barr reach out to him about Crowdstrike are three different topics. You can’t be serious.
But in case you are, allow me to recap these 284 words that have you so confused.
Zelenskyy asks about the aid and Trump responds with “I need you to do us a favor though”. This means if I’m going to help you then you need to help me (since our relationship is not reciprocal).
Trump then moves on to explain how he needs the server investigated. Why? Because 2016 fraud n stuff. He then says he wants Barr to call him... about crowdstrike (since that is still the topic of conversation). He then says, “that whole nonsense ended [yesterday]. “That” in this sentence is still talking about 2016. Continuing... it ended with a poor performance by Robert Mueller, so we’re still talking about 2016 because that is what Robert Mueller was investigating. “But they say a lot of it started with Ukraine” - still talking about 2016. The “it” here is referring back to Trump’s crowdstrike conspiracy theory. So as you can see, we haven’t yet changed the topic of conversation once.
The next chance Trump gets to speak he continues “A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down” - now Trump is moving onto the Biden’s, starting off by inserting the pretense that this prosecutor was great. He then tells Zelenskyy about Giuliani calling him about this, so it’s the same topic. But then Trump switches to ‘Yovanivich was bad’, and then goes right back to the Biden’s (“the other thing...”).
So within these 284 words Trump talked about the 2016 election that he wanted investigated, and then moved onto the Biden’s. When it came to the Biden’s, he interrupted his thought to say the ambassador was bad, and then went right back into what he wanted from Zelenskyy to do. This isn’t complicated. At all.
What I just don’t understand is what you get out of this. When your position is reduced to claiming that every sentence within a conversation is it’s own topic, that should make you rethink your position.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
The projection is breathtaking. I suggest you take your own advice and read the transcript before commenting on it.
Your claim that there were several degrees of separation between “do us a favor though” and “the other thing” is nonsense. In fact Trump uttered just 284 words between them. Here they are...
“I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.
[President Zelenskyy...]
Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing...
This isn’t complicated. Even if there was separation between these two things, that’s where the phrase “the other thing” comes in. If investigating the Biden’s is the other thing then what is the first? Trump didn’t ask Zelenskyy for anything else.
There was no US interest based reason for this call, Trump asked for nothing other than two personal favors, and made clear to Zelenskyy that he needed him to do him these favors first.
Rather then telling me about Schiff’s parody which I couldn’t care less about, do you have an actual argument for why anything I have said is not correct?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Agreed - let’s look at the transcript in totality.
Trump very early in the call starts talking about how the US has been good to Ukraine and how the relationship is not “reciprocal”. Later, when Zelensky brought up the aid Trump’s immediate response was “I need you to do us a favor *though*” and then talks about crowdstrike, an issue that was of no national value but very clear personal value to Trump, so this is already an attempted quid pro quo. But then after moving onto how he plans on getting rid of his anti corruption ambassador, Trump states “The *other* thing...” and then asks for an investigation into the Biden’s.
This is a simple as it gets, and the more context added to it the worse it gets. When Zelensky tells Trump towards the end of the call that he will look into the investigations and changed the subject to working with the US on energy independence, Trump’s immediate response is to tell Zelensky he’ll have Rudy and Bill Barr get in touch with him (about the investigations) before moving on to parting pleasantries.
No where in this conversation did Trump talk about anything of interest to the US. Literally the entire call was; other countries are bad to you but the US has been good, investigate the 2016 election, I’ll have Rudy call you, our ambassador is going to go through some things, investigate the Biden’s, call Rudy, God bye.
There was one purpose to this phone call and that was to get Zelensky to acquiesce to Trump’s personal needs in exchange for the aid Ukraine was already promised. There is no rational way to spin this, that’s why the only defense anyone can make is “well Trump never said quid pro quo”. Sorry, not saying “four” doesn’t mean we can’t see what two plus two equals, and if you’re that bent on making sure you never put two and two together you really need to think about why you’re even bothering.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Setting aside the absurdity of claiming that Biden doing what his boss (and the entire developed world) wanted is a sign of incompetence... You can’t seriously believe that threatening to withhold foreign aid to a country unless that country fixes its own corruption problem is anything remotely similar to threatening to withhold aid to a country unless that country’s president agrees to investigate your political opponent in order to help you win re-election.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I fail to see what this has to do with the conversation. Is the issue here Biden’s alleged impropriety, or is the right outraged because government officials did the unthinkable by failing to follow the letter of the law?
Created:
-->
@coal
Why do you oppose the US embassy being in Jerusalem?
I think this question was intended for someone else, I never weighed in on where the embassy should be.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Because withholding previously legislated aid to a country [Ukraine] against their performing a task, the performance of which is NOT within Biden's jurisdiction to demand, is irrational.
Correct, the Vice President does not have the authority to withhold aid, which is why Biden told them in that same conversation to call the president if they had a an issue with it. In other words, he was delivering the message, not acting on his own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Option one then
Actually no, the apologetic I referenced essentially argues that option 1 and option 2 are the same. But I already describes why that’s nonsense.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
How does Biden delivering official US policy shared with the entire developed world qualify as an example on non-rational foreign policy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The solution I here proposed over and over again by apologists is that God and morality are “one in the same”, essentially the idea that goodness is merely “Gods nature”. I find this to be incoherent. At best it suggests that God is incapable of doing anything that is objectively wrong which defeats the idea that he is omnipotent (not to mention contradicts the Bible). At worst it’s logically absurd. Goodness and God are two entirely different concepts. By definition, they cannot be “one on the same”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
It is inconsistent to argue against that which is inside one's head while sustaining standards that are based on that which is inside one's head.
Then your are being inconsistent right now. Unless you have a solution to solipsism everything you perceive is inside your head, so this seems like a bit of a pointless criticism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The entire system was not built on racism, that’s a ridiculous statement to make. Give me some specific facets of “the system” that are inherently racist
Again, we live in a capitalistic society where wealth begets wealth, and where for hundreds of years the wealth in our society was gained by one race who enslaved the other and then did nothing to make up for their exploitation. How is this complicated?
I’ve brought up ideas that could help the working class in this thread, and suggest it’s a better path forward than endless race baiting
There is nothing race baiting about telling people that your life matters or pointing to the facts about where we are and how we got here. This conversation only gets contentious when people pretend it either didn’t happen or doesn’t matter.
All youre doing here is making an argument against media spectacles.
Do you think black people only experience racism via media spectacles? Do you think there are statistics to capture every time a black person is called a n*gger or told to go back to Africa? Media spectacles are your validation, not theirs.
You say “listen to people’s experiences” which is kind of funny because in a different thread I told you that conservatives have been getting consistently deplatformed from social media for the last four years and you didn’t believe me.
I never said listen to peoples experiences in the context of whether you should believe what they are claiming is true over the statistics or established facts. Throughout this thread you have been constantly dragging the conversation to where you want it to be instead of what it actually is. I jumped on this thread criticizing All Lives Matter and to criticize the criticisms of BLM, mainly the charge that it’s all about power, manipulation, and/or elevating black people over white people or whatever stupid charge is being made instead of what it actually is... a response to centuries of black peoples lives being valued less than those of white people, if not correct then at the very least reasonable. So when I say listen to their experiences, I’m talking about understanding where they are coming from before criticizing it, because statistics do not capture that.
Your conservative example is not a comparison. The only relevant experience they can offer is the very thing we are discussing and therefore is captured purely in statistics. But more importantly... there is no comparison between treated a particular way because of your political views and being treated a particular way because of your skin color, so no I don’t give a rats ass about their experiences. You have a right to say whatever you want and I have a right to say whatever I want in response to it. That’s how society works and that is exactly how it should work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
How you depict someone is how you view them. When people put a Hitler moustache on Trump, they are comparing Trump to Hitler. When BLM puts a halo and wings on Floyd, they are comparing him to angels.
You are completely disregarding the reason why he is being depicted at all. George Floyd is nationally known for one thing... his death. The depiction is meant to draw attention to the thing his death did not take into account... the fact that he was a human being. The praiseworthyness of his individual character is not the subject. I don’t understand what is so difficult about that.
it isn't up to an angry mob that watched a small part of an arrest to determine if he is guilty or not. It isn't my part or yours, either. We can have an opinion, but that is quite different from an angry mob threatening violence if their opinion gets contradicted
The idea that the jury convicted Chauvin because they were scared of a mob is pure right wing fantasy. Provide one piece of evidence to support otherwise.
Reason they don't care about Daniel Shaver? Because they don't actually care about police misconduct, unless it can painted as racially-motivated.
BLM is arguing that these kind of incidents happen *disproportionally* to black people, so showing an example it happening to a white person does not substantiate your claim that they don’t care about their espoused concerns.
I don't understand why you believe they are mutually exclusive.
Because they are contradictory assumptions. You seem to have lost track of the conversation, we were talking about fault and I was explaining why you’re wrong no matter which side of that line you choose. Let me try this again with an analogy;
Person A decides to store rat poison in the pantry in a jar labeled “salt”. Person B finds it and then uses that jar to season a plate for Person C. Person C dies. Whose fault is it, Person A or B?
Obviously it’s Person A. Why? Because Person B had no reason to believe that a white powdery substance in the pantry in a jar labeled “salt” would have been anything but salt.
It’s all about expectations at the outset. You are claiming the expectation is that police should be regarded as public servants who are there to protect and also as violent cops just jumpy to beat a stranger. These are directly opposing concepts. If both accurately describe the officer than the latter is the true characterization. You cannot claim you are not a murderer because you didn’t kill anyone today.
So you are wrong either way. If the *expectation* of police officers is that they are public servants tasked with our protection, then it is not the fault of the perp resisting arrest when they are shot and killed for resisting arrest because as I already explained, that entails that the perp had reason to expect they would be killed. But if the expectation is that they are violent and will respond with deadly force if you don’t comply with their orders... then the entire problem just sailed right over your head.
You characterized the latter as a result of imperfection. To accept that as the standard for a police officer is appalling. Imagine taking the same attitude with airline pilots; “some are imperfect”. Well sure, every human being is imperfect, but if we started seeing plane crashes every month because of “imperfect” pilots I’m pretty sure you would be at the front of the line demanding change.
they remove all fault from perpetrators and, when applicable, blame it on conscious racist motivations.
It has nothing to do with motivations. The central gripe is not that the cop meant to kill the person because they were black. It’s about cops having a different attitude towards white people as they do black people. What is that line we always hear from officers... “I feared for my life”. Why? How do you fear for your life when someone is walking away from you? How do you fear for your life when the person you pulled over is telling you upfront they have a legally registered gun in the car? And do you honestly believe the fear these officers tend to experience in these situations is no different when it’s a black suspect vs a white one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
That likely isn't due to racism, though. I reject the notion that America is a systemically racist country and have never seen any good evidence to prove that it is. This is because black people started at the bottom and the rug was pulled out from under families trying to make it to the middle class in the 1960s.
Them saying systemic racism isn’t real and then pointing right to it.
Again, it has nothing to do with whether there is any current intent to hold down people of color. We’re talking about a system that was built on racism and even though those rules have since changed, the effects of those rules still remain prevalent today. That is systemic racism.
We live in a society where wealth begets wealth, and where the wealth in our country was largely built during a time period where the rules for all were not the same. Plus Kids born into poor families are far more likely to be poor when raising their own kids, this cycle is basic human nature. So while I’m sure you might claim it’s all about the individual, I have a hard time believing you would see it that way if your family’s lower class standing could be traced all the way back to a period where your ancestors were regarded as property.
What makes you so confident that the left has the right side of reality, though? Earlier in this thread I've asked for statistics and was told I should instead listen to peoples experiences.
I never said the left did. In fact I said earlier that I don’t think the reality is as bad as many woke activists would have us all believe. Once again, remember the context of this conversation; I’m not arguing BLM is right on everything, I’m arguing against the idea that this is all about easily manipulable people talking to the streets because their political overlords told them to be angry. I’m expressing that they have legitimate points, even if the other side does as well.
Regarding my comment on peoples experiences, I was talking about having conversations with people and recognizing that you aren’t going to get people to listen to you by quoting something you read in the internet when they are coming from a place of lived experience. At the very least you need to show that you understand where they are coming from.
I mean, the same amount people died in the 2020 protests/riots alone than unarmed black people killed by the police in 2019
This isn’t just about numbers, in fact that has almost nothing to do with it. If a 747 falls out of the sky killing 200 people and the cause is never found, that affects more than just the 200 people who were killed, it impacts every single person who steps on a plane afterward.
If you’ve ever spent much time around black spaces one thing you’d know is that black people almost never call the cops, they tend to believe it will only make things worse. Imagine what it’s like to live in fear of the very people who are tasked with protecting you. Now you might write that off as unreasonableness, but that’s why I say listen to people’s experiences. People may not always feel the way they do for good reasons, but they don’t feel that way for no reason. And when that feeling is shared throughout an entire racial community, it is quite arrogant to presume you understand their situation better than they do.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I just did. Why is this so difficult?
I used the analogy of a broken clock being right twice a day to point out the fact that Trump being correct about the Intel on Russian bounties being false, does not mean he was “right”.
You responded to this with a rant about clocks, time, and earths position. I’m just asking you... was this a serious response?
I suppose it doesn’t matter what your answer is there though, cause either way this conversation derailed from being serious long ago. If it was a joke then there’s nothing for me to respond to, if it was serious then there’s nothing worth me responding to. So either way... have a nice day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
A: God is fiction, God is in your Head.
Logic's validity is contingent on the value placed on it. It connects supposed truths. Those values and suppositions are no less inside one's head.
Fiction: a belief based in fantasy, not aligned with reality
Logic: the connection of assumed truths to form a conclusion
Are you equating these two things based on the fact that they are both “in our heads”? Cause that’s what I’ve gathered thus far.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I replied with a 9 second YouTube video essentially poking fun at you. Not exactly my way of refuting an argument.
So are you going to answer or not? Was that serious? Do you really need to to explain again and in greater detail the absurdity of attacking the clock analogy within the context of the conversation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
(Some) Atheists lack respect for that which is inside one's head because they lack an appreciate for their own argument.
This is essentially just the nuclear argument. If your position cannot be substantiated then just blow up all knowledge so that you can claim the next persons argument is just as bad as yours.
We trust our observations to collect data about reality because we have no other choice. It’s a result of practical necessity. We assume the validity of logic because because we have no other choice. Any attempt to validate or invalidate logic requires the usage of it, thereby presupposing its validity. There’s no way around that.
The fact that these concepts exist inside of our heads does not mean that anything else which takes place inside of our heads belongs on equal footing.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Your response wasn’t serious enough for a real reply. I honestly took it as a joke, are you really telling you meant that as an actual argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Funny how every time someone has a near death experience, they always visit the afterlife they already believe in and never anyone else’s. Id love to hear about a Christian facing death and seeing Allah there to greet him.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
You should consider why everyone is okay with dehumanizing whites in this fashion but you feel (rightfully) a sense of disgust when someone treats black people like a monolith who are all responsible for the sins of a minority, or for people who are long dead.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of this issue.
This has nothing to do with dehumanizing whites, or blaming white people for the sins of their ancestors. That is a complete straw man. No one is keeping this X vs Y tally because it is irrelevant to the argument. No one is saying white people have done more bad things to black people therefore they should pay, we’re not talking about punishment. The argument is quite simple, and here it is;
The fact that black people as a community are in the bottom of nearly every societal health indicator, from wealth, to family units, to even physical health... is not an accident or result of mere chance. It is the result of systemic issues built and perpetuated over centuries, its effects still linger on black communities to this day, and it doesn’t matter whether anyone upholding them today has any racist intent. If a bullet pierces your skull, it doesn’t matter whether the person who pulled the trigger meant to kill you, either way you’re still dead.
If you are getting defensive or feel disgusted when black people or anyone else make arguments that point this out, then the entire point just sailed right over your head. It’s not about you. It’s about the factual reasons the black community fell into this space, and how we get them out.
But all of this is an assessment at 30,000 feet. None of it applies to the individual. That is of course where this gets complicated, but there is no way to address the complicated if we can’t get in the same page about the simple fact of what this is about in the first place.
I absolutely hate the racial grievance
I do as well, but I think we find ourselves on opposite ends because I recognize something... when someone is expressing their grievances to you, don’t expect them to stop and especially don’t expect them to listen to you until you acknowledge what they have to say. The Trump like reaction to BLM is exactly why we can’t get past this and start talking about policy, because policy discussions must begin with a shared sense of reality, and that can only happen if we start talking to each other and not past each other.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
The point doesn't get it, nor do you
You can’t seriously believe what you are writing. You are either trolling or just so hell bent on being right that you will go to any length to stamen straw man the point.
This is what the clock analogy means...
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
wrong, the intelligence didnt go to trump nor was he briefed about it, it was a horrifical misguided intelligence that ended up being used by the media
And you believe this because Trump said so I bet. Ok then. So the media what, just made up the whole story including the officials who confirmed it?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
In other words, when anything violates its intended purpose, even by being broken, it is not fulfilling the full measure of its creation.
No, not even close.
The example of a broken clock being right twice a day is simply pointing to the fact that being right does not mean one actually understood what was going on and/or made the right decision. It was a simple response to an even simpler assertion. Your 0.1% analogy had nothing to do with the point being made.
You have elected a President who cannot even find his mask, let alone a door. He's lost a mind he never had in the first place.
I voted for the better candidate. I’d much rather have a President who misplaces his mask than one who thinks it might be a good idea to drop a nuclear bomb inside a hurricane, or that the solution to California’s wildfire problem is a rake, or that maybe we should look into injecting disinfectant inside the body to give the lungs a good cleaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
And you guys do plenty of stuff to make normal people hate you. No need to use talking points lol. For instance, burning small businesses and saying "oh it's okay, you have insurance. Lives over property!"
Who are you talking to? I don’t recall arguing nor supporting “oh it's okay, you have insurance”.
They literally painted murals of Floyd with angel wings and a halo. They gave him a golden casket.
So what? This is your evidence that the BLM protests are about how perfect of a human being the protesters think George Floyd was, and not about the perceived injustices people who share his skin color have to deal with in this country?
Do you understand what it means when a person becomes a symbol, and how it impacts the way people view that individual?
But your groups aren't looking for justice. You're looking for a conviction.
Do you believe these two things are mutually exclusive?
We have a system of justice in this country for a reason. If someone resists arrest that is a violation for the courts to adjudicate. George Floyd never got that chance, so I couldn’t give a shit less about whatever he did. Justice in this situation was not for Derek Chauvin to impose.No, it wasn't. I don't disagree with courts' role. I don't think it was optimal that a death occurred. However…
Not optimal… ok. This was kind of the heart of our entire discussion, is this all you have to say in response? Do you not understand how this would set some people off, especially if every time they turn on their TV or scroll through their phone there seems to be another example of this and every time it occurs the victim happens to look just like them?
So, to clarify, I'll say most times something bad happens to a criminal during the arrest, such as batons getting used, it is the fault of the criminal and not violent cops just jumpy to beat a stranger.
Your argument is a complete contradiction. You claim that police officers are not “violent cops just jumpy to beat a stranger”, but yet you have to accept that in order to blame their actions on the suspect.
To determine fault you must begin by looking at what the reasonable expectations should have been at the outset. If we begin with the presumption that police officers are public servants who are sworn to protect, then that is incompatible with officers using force beyond what is necessary to make an apprehension (the literal definition of police brutality).
So which is it, are cops violent stranger beating thugs which we all must be aware not to piss off, or are they public servants that we should expect better from? Because it seems to me like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too.
To determine fault you must begin by looking at what the reasonable expectations should have been at the outset. If we begin with the presumption that police officers are public servants who are sworn to protect, then that is incompatible with officers using force beyond what is necessary to make an apprehension (the literal definition of police brutality).
So which is it, are cops violent stranger beating thugs which we all must be aware not to piss off, or are they public servants that we should expect better from? Because it seems to me like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Your dead clock with it's hands coincidentally marking a time of day, twice a day, is useless at all other times, like the open door, and the closed door.
If you prefer another analogy, this is like finding out your babysitter took the children to the park and left them there, then later excused her actions by claiming no pedophiles came around so they were never in danger.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'm not saying that is how we evaluate presidents, this story was used to bring down Trump and spread lies about him. he was honest
No, it wasn’t. Have you listened to a word any of us have said? Because you keep repeating the same garbage no matter how many times we explain it.
One more time... the intelligence alleging Russia put bounties on our troops was in Trump’s intelligence briefing. It was never a certainty, but there was enough evidence for it to be there. *Trump did nothing about it*.
There. That’s the story. Do you understand?
there is no proper exaplanation on why this intelligence would come up
That is completely, utterly irrelevant. The story is about how Trump reacted to the threat against our troops, not why our how the threat was determined.
This is not complicated, unless you are purposely trying to make it so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
You "Black people are not just asking for policy concessions, they’re asking for people to care"
Me "Do you really think white people don't care about black people? They seem obsessed in a pretty gross way"
You "They care, but not about the things that actually matter, like black issues"
Me "That's weird, since studies show that whites have the least in-group bias of any racial group"
You "That's right, and here's why!"
You are talking about different things.
Studies showing less racial bias in white people does not mean they care about black issues, in fact it supports the opposite. People are far less likely to care about something they don’t relate to.
I specifically stated “many white people fall short of that”. It wasn’t an assessment of the entire white race. There are plenty that do and there are plenty that don’t. Opinions vary, it’s not that simple.
I think few people would argue that anyone who hoists a confederate flag is likely to care about black issues, yet they are not a small and insignificant group in our country and are almost entirely white.
Assessing a racial group as a whole and acknowledging issues within that racial group are two separate things. When talking about causes, that relates to the former. When talking about results, that relates to the latter.
I hope that clarifies things.
I mean okay, but if white people, who you agree have the least in-group bias and explained for why you think that is, don't care about black people then we can be all but certain that black people don't care about white people to an even greater extent, no?
There is no reason they should. White people are the dominant group in our society. They own more wealth and are in primary control of nearly every local government, state government, court, and law enforcement agency in the country. So to suggest that minority communities, especially a community that has been oppressed throughout the vast majority of this country’s history should concern themselves with the problems of the majority who oppressed them and is already in control of everything largely because of it makes no sense.
So I understand the impulse to act as if racial animus is equally wrong no matter where it comes from, but white animus towards black people and black animus towards white people are completely different things.
So I understand the impulse to act as if racial animus is equally wrong no matter where it comes from, but white animus towards black people and black animus towards white people are completely different things.
It's 100% the only thing that the conversation is about
If you want to know what this conversation is about, scroll back to the start of this thread and read each of my responses in context. The only points I have argued here are that All Lives Matter is a stupid slogan, and why it is wrong to characterize BLM in the way that many here are.
If all you want is a statistical debate I’m not interested. This is a monumentally complicated subject so anyone can find statistics on this to prove whatever conclusion they want. I’d rather discuss philosophical points because that is what tends to determine which statistics people find compelling.
If all you want is a statistical debate I’m not interested. This is a monumentally complicated subject so anyone can find statistics on this to prove whatever conclusion they want. I’d rather discuss philosophical points because that is what tends to determine which statistics people find compelling.
I asked if you have evidence that whites routinely get away with murdering black people, and you said it doesn't matter. What am I supposed to say, then?
It doesn’t matter within the context of this conversation because I am not making that claim. I am not criticizing the conclusion that the reality doesn’t match the rhetoric, I am criticizing blindness to the issues being raised, the strawmanning of those raising these issues, and the complete lack of empathy demonstrated in both examples.
I hate our societies obsession with race, but if we're supposed to have a "conversation about race" I don't understand why it only ever goes in one direction.
What other direction is it supposed to go in? I understand perfectly well pushing back against going too far, like when someone suggests that white people are not allowed to have their own opinions on racial issues (thinking about White Fragility) or when someone labels a white person’s argument as “whitesplaining”. I find stuff like this to be equally repulsive. But pushing back against that is not reversing the direction of the conversation.
The issue I see here is that white people have an incredible tendency to make these conversations about themselves. All Lives Matter is a perfect example of this. If you are expressing your grievances to someone and they respond by talking about theirs, or by acting as if they are just as impacted as you are even though they’re certainly not and would have never brought it up otherwise… I’m sure you would react to them the same way.
The issue I see here is that white people have an incredible tendency to make these conversations about themselves. All Lives Matter is a perfect example of this. If you are expressing your grievances to someone and they respond by talking about theirs, or by acting as if they are just as impacted as you are even though they’re certainly not and would have never brought it up otherwise… I’m sure you would react to them the same way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
For the 10-20% that it is their fault, it is the responsibility of the police. But most of the time when there is a police-involved ass whoopin', it is because the perp fights with the cop.
Police brutality is literally defined as the excessive and unwarranted use of force. It is by definition, no one else’s fault. What you’re trying to do is excuse it, which is absurd. You’re holding professionals paid with your tax dollars to the same standard as the people they are sworn to protect.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
he was right
So is a broken clock. Twice every day. I’ll have to remember that this is the new standard for how we evaluate presidents.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Timing is a huge factor, and, to me [yes, it is a personal opinion] the case of Dr. Ford against Justice Kavanaugh, being almost 30 years ago, is just a little but to late in accusation to be credible. Believe her, when at the time of the alleged incident, she said nothing? That's a bridge too far.
Timing has nothing to do with it. Most rapes go unreported and Dr. Ford is another example of why.
Given the entirety of the situation, I find it absurd to claim it more likely did not happen than it did. Dr. Ford had nothing to gain, and Kavanaugh’s handling of it screamed guilty. At the very least it should have disqualified him from contention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
All women should be heard, belief should follow of the evidence warrants. I don’t see why this is such a controversial discussion, we should be using the same standards as we do for everything else in life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I really think that the way to stop police "brutality" is like 80-90%% on the perps to just comply with reasonable orders.
So fixing police brutality is not the responsibility of the police, it’s the responsibility of the private citizens being arrested. Got it.
And what’s hilarious about this mentality is that it comes from the same segment of our population ranting and raving about government tyranny because someone told them to put on a mask.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
And there is your issue. You're still stuck presuming that the cop "killed him". You choose to be willfully ignorant of the impact of drugs on a guy with heart disease.
I started off this trial undecided on what killed him and whether Chauvin should be found guilty. I moved my position based on the facts, like the fact that every single individual who examined Floyd before and after his death said he died due to asphyxiation. To still be here talking about drugs, his heart, etc. in light of this is the willfully ignorant position.
A "movement" that literally considers George Floyd, a drug addict that pressed a gun to a pregnant woman's stomach while robbing her, a saint?
I defend decent people and that is all. Once you start defending rapist Jacob Blake and robbers of pregnant women, don't expect most people to come aboard.
When I tell you that you do not understand what this is all about, instead of getting butthurt over being condescended to, perhaps you should stop and think about what is actually being said.
This is an absolutely absurd portrayal of what BLM is arguing here. No one is out in the streets rioting because they think George Floyd or Jacob Blake are saints. That’s just a right wing talking point used to manipulate the ignorant into hating the left.
This is about the fact that police officers are not the judge, jury and executioner. They don’t get to decide whether someone’s life is worth being concerned about, and if they kill someone they are to be held accountable for their actions. They’re not calling Floyd a saint, they’re calling him a human being. They’re not rising up for Floyd, they’re rising up for themselves because they fear any one of them could be next. What is so hard about that?
Do you think that there is no value added by seeing him struggle with officers to not get in the car first? No value added by context of why he was there?
None whatsoever. Police officers are public servants. They are working on the taxpayer’s dime, trained with our tax dollars, given a gun, a badge, and entrusted with the authority to use them. If they cannot handle their tempers or someone not following their instructions, they are in the wrong job.
We have a system of justice in this country for a reason. If someone resists arrest that is a violation for the courts to adjudicate. George Floyd never got that chance, so I couldn’t give a shit less about whatever he did. Justice in this situation was not for Derek Chauvin to impose.
We have a system of justice in this country for a reason. If someone resists arrest that is a violation for the courts to adjudicate. George Floyd never got that chance, so I couldn’t give a shit less about whatever he did. Justice in this situation was not for Derek Chauvin to impose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Do you have evidence of that? Because numerous studies have found that whites have the lowest in-group bias of all American races
That’s because white people have always been the majority in this country, so they have no need to see the world through a racial lens. A black person who heads into the corporate world is guaranteed to be one of very few black people in any space. Turn on your television, almost everyone you see is white except for that one black person that’s always included so they can say they are being diverse (aka tokenism).
When you grow up in a country that looks nothing like you, you would tend to see race everywhere as well. Imagine if the Avengers were all black with that one white superhero, or if every iteration of Star Trek had black captains and almost entirely black crews except for one in each because you know, diversity. I’m sure race would play a bigger picture in how you see things.
And that’s before learning about the history of how your ancestors have all been treated because they looked like you.
Do you have empirical evidence that white-on-black murders, of which there are far fewer than the reverse, are less likely to result in a conviction?
No, because that’s not what this conversation about. You can cite statistics all day from behind your phone or computer screen, black people and BLM supporters are reacting to what they are seeing with their own eyes, both on social media and in real life in their own neighborhoods.
Will Smith put it best when he said “racism isn’t getting worse, it’s getting filmed”. These are peoples experiences, and while that doesn’t mean a whole lot when it comes to proving that there is an actual tangible difference in things like the number of black people killed per violent crime vs white people or whatever specific category you want to carve out, the point is that these people aren’t just making things up nor is this some plot to fake reality for political power or whatever stupid conspiracy the right loves to allege.
If you want to have a conversation about race you need to acknowledge what others are actually talking about. If someone shows you a video of a black person being shot in the back and your reaction is to quote statistics you found on google you’re not attempting to do that.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Being skeptical of rich people isn't the same thing as being a cult-like libtard.
Please stop talking as if you are ten years old. It’s not a virtue.
There’s nothing wrong with skepticism. What you are describing is not skepticism, it’s bias driven close your eyes approach to anything that comes from a particular source. You have shown that you do not apply logic or critical thinking to anything you hear and then tell us that we’re the one’s acting like we’re in a cult. It’s absurd, but you are entitled to love your life however you see fit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Whenever drug addict, criminal whites are killed by the police while resisting arrest, I never loot a Target or support them.
Yet another demonstration of just how the point to all of this went way over your head.
Then they watch a video with no context and raze a city to the ground.
Please explain the context that excuses an officer for kneeling on a man’s neck for 9 minutes, including 3 minutes after he stopped breathing.
He really isn't worth being concerned about. He has been arrested many times... But the fact that I don't care that he died probably makes me a lot more objective when looking at the evidence than someone who is "enraged" by the incident, no?
No. The fact that a man was killed slowly, in broad daylight while posing no threat whatsoever to the cop who killed him and your response to this is not to be bothered by what the cop did, but to talk about the person that he killed and how that person’s life wasn’t worth caring about shows not only that you have an incredible bias in this but that you are exactly what this movement is fighting to rid the world of.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So that’s a no. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Do you actually think white people don’t care about black people? It seems to me like white people simultaneously worship and fear black people. Getting validation from a black person is something a lot of whites are clearly obsessed with
White people love black culture. That’s not the same thing as caring about black people. The latter entails more than rooting for your favorite black athlete or celebrity, or wanting to be like that cool black kid in the class. It means caring about black issues as much as you care about those of your own race, and I think many white people fall short of that.
What black people and their sympathizers want is for black people to be treated like human beings. For starters, how about some convictions when their people are murdered? That’s why the Chauvin trial was so big. If a slow, conscious, on the spot execution caught on video would not have gotten a guilty verdict then nothing would.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I’d say the challenger has no obligation to agree, but if they don’t they’re kind of a dick.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I mean... you’re wrong, but okay.
It’s literally what happened, and it completely sailed over your head. People like you are too busy painting George Floyd as human trash who’s life is not worth being concerning about (and I’m sure the fact that he’s black has absolutely nothing to do with that) to understand the basic idea of what people are enraged about.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
For the third time, do you base anything you believe on logic or critical thinking? Or are epithets and claims of conspiracy really all you have?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I'd think that the fentanyl overdose of a career criminal after resisting arrest would have also fallen back into obscurity without...
...him being murdered in broad daylight on video.
Fixed.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Rich people aren’t the ones doing the reporting, so what does this have to do with it? And going back to my original question, do things like logic and Occam’s razor not play a role? Are you so afraid you won’t be able to tell the difference between real news and BS that you just choose not to listen at all? As much as I loathe Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity I still watch an episode once a week or so just to see what they have to say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I have no idea why you are equating a focus on where people are coming from with religious behavior. Understanding the former is kind of the point in any political discussion.
Regarding your question, sure, from a purely strategic standpoint there are much better ways BLM can go about to get the kind of change they are asking for and I’ve argued with woke leftists many times about that. But it’s not always that simple. Black people are not just asking for policy concessions, they’re asking for people to care, otherwise when the next issue comes along we’ll be doing this all over again.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because almost all rich people are narcissists.
That has nothing to do with the question. You said you don’t listen to any MSM news source because you know, rich people. I’m asking you what rich people have to do with it.
Created: