Username

unfortunately the foundation doesn't seem interested in taking and keeping control of their mission.  I mean I haven't seen any denouncing the actions of supposed BLM rioters, looters and criminals.  No denouncing any of the violence, unprovoked attacks against white people etc.  If you don't come out against it, it's like you condone it.  Talk about destroying your credibility and message.

That's not the point. If you are going to make the claim that the police system is so corrupt that it must be fundamentally changed from the ground up, you need the numbers to back that claim up. A few rogue cops out of millions of encounters isn't sufficient.

there is no "whole"  there is not BLM because anyone can call their group BLM and it can stand for whatever they want, that's the point, there really is no BLM, it's not an organization just a catch phrase.

So your solution is defunding the police? Gotcha. Police unions are what protect the bad actors. Conservatives have been against unions for a while now. Unions are the largest contributors to Democrats

Is the fact that 0.00000001% of police interactions result in deaths

lots of groups claim they are BLM and are anti-white.  BLM is a non entity because of that.

By perpetuating lies and hyper-focusing on only white-on-black crimes to cause racial hatred of white people, I consider you anti-white.

And when you lie to people in order to anger them, I’d say that you are at least somewhat responsible for their actions. The whole big starting point for their movement was lying about Michael Brown’s shooting

Honestly what's absent from the discussion of police brutality is the magnitude of the problem and the impact it has on communities. The impact of the problem should be measured when it comes to making policy changes. I suspect that it's not a very significant problem in most jurisdictions and that the real problem is overraction to the incidents.

But when it comes to protesting on a national level - I just don't see the issue as rising to the level where the response is proportionate.

So an anti-White and anti-cop movement has no responsibility when their supporters abuse White people and kill cops?

Does that mean that the KKK (they don’t really exist anymore, but insert random “hate group”) isn’t responsible when one of their members attacks people?

so the first is a horse trample, honest mistake-you cant control a horse in a massive city, and the police TRIED to control him but of course the communist crowd got upset, of course people would say "oh dont ride a horse" yet his wouldnt be proof of massive police brutality, a one off thing where it can be corrected(also in houston so good luck with covid)

The intentional hit and run was 100% justified, he was on the road

"for sport" nope, it was their order to move forward and those who resisted were beaten justified--Pro tip: if oyu dont want to get hit, move out of the way from the cops

the fourth clip is without context so its very hard to tell if it was escalated by that guy, then he should have been arrested

the 8th clip is so funny. hes complain about "brutality" and then says that they burned the place down!

I dont feel like going through more but it is crazy how this is "massive police brutality" when it is simply a case of one hit on an annoying protestor

As well as it PALES in comparison to the riots across the country

hope there are at least 300,000 links to put the 3 million annual police interactions into perspective.

Nope, let down again by the rabid left.

What war were the palestinians fighting? As far as i am aware they were part of the ottomans who lost the war.

British didnt take over until the war ended. And yes, the Brits hold the majority of the blame in this situation and the situation as a whole.

I dont know the details of every operation, especially the more recent ones, but i am open to info, however i did read more on the earlier struggle. I am not saying they were innocent 20 years ago, im saying they were under legitamete threat from suicide bombings in contrast to Hamas's ineffective rockets of today. I was explaining why israel has become so hostile and jaded to palestinians. 100 years of constant violence did that to both sides, however Israel was far less hostile and violent at the beginning. They did not kick out any arabs until war started, and 1) they did not start the war, 2) they were under attack by the local arabs for decades prior to the war including an entire decade of nonretaliation. Once war starts, of course attrocities happened, but the lead up to the war is mostly on the shoulders of the palestinians imo. So yeah, they got alittle aggressive during the war, nothing unexpected.

You've been attending too many left wing college meetings.

Like most young progressives, you seem to have gotten your history from a cartoon. You probably just need the perspective experience brings.

BTW, are you African American?

Our disagreement is not about whether blacks were discriminated against, but about whether they disrespect America.

I don't think that is always true. Some people just get screwed by other Americans, not America. Some people screw themselves and then blame America. And a few deserve to get screwed because of their evil behavior.

That there is a reason why they were tiny minorities. What was the doctrine of official communist countries towards black people? If a tiny minority was ill treated, would a greater number fared better?

Yet history shows that the most concrete advances were made under conservatives. For example, the first black Sanator was republican.

This is a liberal talking point that leftist parrot without critical thought. A great man once sasaid...

Equality of opportunity is freedom, equality of outcome is tyranny.

Conservatives want equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.

And since I am not a liberal, you will have to tell me what is intrinsically wrong with heirarchy.

Lie. You said Black Americans did not respect America. That is untrue. I told you that African Americans would, and have historically, disagreed with you. Nothing about "success", and no ad-hom.

Do you need a safe space snowflake?

Perhaps you mean that Black Americans have a cause to disrespect America, but if so, which people do not have cause in their past?

Uh huh. Blacks did great under Stalin and Mao.

1. The argumentation is the stage when participants take turns publishing their arguments, the number of which is equal to the number of the rounds in the debate. All rounds contain arguments consisting of any or all of the following: argumentation, rebuttals, defenses, conclusions, and, as appropriate, references to sourcing. Instigator may designate specific content in each round, such as limiting rounds in which argumentation, rebuttal, defense, and conclusions are contained.  

"2. Waiving any round by suggestion of either participant is not allowed. The stipulation of arguments equaling the number of rounds prevails. Instigator has the privilege, and responsibility, of having the first argument of each round and may not abdicate it by suggestion in the Description entered during the challenge phase." 

3. It is recommended for ease of voting that sourcing references be contained within the body of text, at the bottom of each relevant argumentation round, However, for brevity if word/space count is limiting, it is acceptable to document sourcing references in comments within the context of the debate file, but only during the argumentation phase. It s suggested that sourcing not be in an external file by linkage as this causes even greater complication of time for voters, and may result in their negative conduct assessment.

4. When a participant’s argument round is not published by the deadline, the participant automatically forfeits that round and most likely will be punished by the voters. If the number of forfeited rounds for either participant equals or exceeds half the rounds, it is an automatic voted loss of the debate. The opposing participant may indicate “extend argument to next round” in the event an opponent forfeits a round, or, a continuation of argumentation may be entered and published. 

5. In any round, either participant may concede the debate. That participant may either abandon the debate at that point [automatic forfeit of each round], or indicate “concede” in each succeeding round[s]. The opposing participant may either continue argumentation in each succeeding round, or indicate “extend argument” in each succeeding round. In any case, concession, without recourse of re-consideration, is a voted loss of the debate.

7. Neither debate participant may directly suggest voting tactics to voters during argumentation, or in comments. The entry of text such as, “I have proven my argument of [enter brief description] by virtue of [enter brief description]" is acceptable.

8. Neither debate participant may declare victory over the opponent in any round preceding the last round as it may invite conduct violation by voters.  It is a conduct violation in forfeiture because the opponent may not assume a round forfeiture is complete debate forfeiture. In the last round, victory may be suggested, but only by commentary such as suggested in the preceding paragraph of this section. This policy will be followed in the instance of forfeiture or concession as a manner of courtesy.

It is reasonable policy to ignore what doesn't exist.

These are your opinions about white Dems and Reps, not Blacks. African Americans themselves irked liberals by embracing Christianity, volunteering for war to defend America, registering to vote, and actively taking part in the country's social culture.

They irked conservatives by not lashing back at those who wanted to keep them 2nd class citizens, and refusing to give up conservative values just because white conservatives were slow on acceptance. Time and time again, they have proven both the angry black militant wrong, and the fawning white liberal wrong.

"Worth" is always subjective.

I would dare say most Black Americans would not agree with you. And to the consternation of people like you, Black Americans have constantly proven you wrong.

Then whether it's worth the tradeoff to you is immaterial.

The man is an entitled, prissy, disrespectful, brat. He will fade into obscurity the way all losers do. America, and those who love her, will remain.

No one asked CK to give credit. He just didn't need to be disrespectful.

You weren't the one doing the "trading".

Do expound please. I'm all ears.

Then maybe you should do a little more research on unconscious bias

I am addressing your claim that birth conditions such as unconscious bias cause racism

It's pernicious when the Nazis did it and it's just as bad when the 2020 woke academic Marxists do it.

Absofuckinglutely. If you wanna go down the rabbithole for judging people for things they can't control, why stop at fingernails?

The most insidious anti-white racist thing being taught at Marxist universities today is this concept of unconscious bias. It basically says simply having the DNA of white skin makes you a problem for society whether you know it or not. This ties on along nicely with the concept of blood-guilt, being responsible for the actions of long-dead people that you happen to share DNA with.

Has to be some of the most pernicious teachings ever to come out of the racist universities. In the 1800's junk academics used similar logic to justify why people with black-skin DNA were an inherent problem for society.

Is that why they'll argue against all lives matter?

Considering that the fetus, actually from the moment of conception when two gametes become a zygote, the DNA says human, aznd specifically, the DNA of a black zygote says black skin, and not anything else. "Human," as in people.