Abuse of Power Thread (Cops, Governments, Etc.) - Part 1

[MessiahDecoy123]

I agree with your post except it being a flimsy excuse. When ever I visit Asia, I've heard people say "hey ******" or "what's up my ******" and at first I wanted to whoop some arse but they simply didn't know what it really means. They only go by what they see on tv and videos. If you are a white dude and all you hang around is black people who use that word all the time, you can't tell me that you ain't going to use it. Sorry but it's reality. It also amazes me that those same guys who got into a fight with the woman who called them that was blasting music that was saying that word over and over again.


I agree 100%!!!


Then you can't yell racism when someone calls you that. "Urban" culture has seemed to go worldwide and made it cool for that word to be used because, again, it seems to be on every song and station, and even in song titles. I remember people got pissed at Gwen Paltry for saying she was bumping the song "n**gas in Paris* but she was only repeating the title. The word should be banned and until black people stop using it, then don't expect other people to not use it.

Look I think the gay slur that starts with an F is pretty ugly. But if they take ownership of the word and use it in a context they're comfortable with, who am I to tell them they're not allowed to do so?

And then to go further and say they cannot repurpose a word because it's unfair to people who belong to the group who prosecuted them...

Are you serious? Gays can do whatever they want with slurs directed at them. Call it a perk of belonging to a persecuted group but it's not unfair for a persecuted group to repurpose a word intended to hurt them.

It's actually understandable and their right to do so.

 

[Docker2.0]

What about when gays start calling everyone else the F word? Or start to say "cigarette" in every other word to the point where it's cool? Sorry but the way that word is glorified, it can never be justified. Plus the point I don't get is, the song they were bumping loudly had the N word coming out like crazy. The woman repeats it, now it's a fight. Come on, you don't see anything wrong with that?

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

Docker you need to conform to the majority. Join them... join

 

[Teelie]

Black people as a whole are never going to stop saying the N-word. It's deeply ingrained into urban slang and urban culture. White people need to accept that blacks use it in their own context and move on instead of saying "waaah, it's not fair we can't use it".

You totally miss the point with that dismissive response.

Look I think the gay slur that starts with an F is pretty ugly. But if they take ownership of the word and use it in a context they're comfortable with, who am I to tell them they're not allowed to do so?

And then to go further and say they cannot repurpose a word because it's unfair to people who belong to the group who prosecuted them...

Are you serious? Gays can do whatever they want with slurs directed at them. Call it a perk of belonging to a persecuted group but it's not unfair for a persecuted group to repurpose a word intended to hurt them.

It's actually understandable and their right to do so.

And with this one. You cannot understand the reason it's a failure to attempt this and I doubt you ever will if previous responses from you are anything to go on.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

I've noticed some of the members here saying, "It's wrong that every time something happens, there are people who ALWAYS support the police side of it (exclusively)." which I can understand that sentiment to a degree. There is some hypocrisy to that mentality though. These same people are always 100% on the other side of the fence. No not the fence being jumped at the pool party

Is everyone really being objective? Is the opposition always 100% wrong, because you happen to stick to one proverbial team? *worth pondering*

 

[Teelie]

It's about the authority figures who abuse their status against everyone else. There are plenty of people in authority who do not, but this is not about them.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

The big misconception with this thread is that by wanting those who abuse their power to be dealt with accordingly we then have some problem with all the people in power who don't abuse their power and that is just simply not the case. Granted there are many individuals who straight up don't like cops but that is something based off of their own life experiences and I won't fault them for that. But don't get it twisted that we think all cops or government officials are corrupt and we want straight up anarchy

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

I don't know that it is misconception. It's just that some of the stories that are posted, aren't so clearly a case of the cops abusing power (though obviously it happens in life, just not always in the stories presented). Some come in with the mentality of "fight the power" but at the same time, we need to evaluate what leads up to the results of these situations. That's why you see divided opinions on some of what is posted.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

You totally miss the point with that dismissive response.



And with this one. You cannot understand the reason it's a failure to attempt this and I doubt you ever will if previous responses from you are anything to go on.

So you respond to a dismissive post with another dismissive post.

How about you explain how exactly my post failed to address his point, Mr. Vague.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Well back when I had more time I would always try to provide any relevant updates and still do sometimes when I can but anyone can post any relevant updates about a case here. There are many instances where a video goes viral sparking moral outrage everywhere and then come to find out 2-3 days later it wasn't the whole story. In this day and age it's bound to happen. But I would rather deal with not getting the facts straight at the get go in some cases and adjusting my opinion accordingly later than letting the real abuses just slide by because I want to wait until a formal investigation is done on the matter. I'd venture to say the majority of folks would agree with me on this

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

Well back when I had more time I would always try to provide any relevant updates and still do sometimes when I can but anyone can post any relevant updates about a case here. There are many instances where a video goes viral sparking moral outrage everywhere and then come to find out 2-3 days later it wasn't the whole story. In this day and age it's bound to happen. But I would rather deal with not getting the facts straight at the get go in some cases and adjusting my opinion accordingly later than letting the real abuses just slide by because I want to wait until a formal investigation is done on the matter. I'd venture to say the majority of folks would agree with me on this

This is a good post.

I would say that it's not just the person posting breaking viral news, but the quick reactions to sway one way or another without much to go on is an issue.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

What about when gays start calling everyone else the F word? Or start to say "cigarette" in every other word to the point where it's cool? Sorry but the way that word is glorified, it can never be justified. Plus the point I don't get is, the song they were bumping loudly had the N word coming out like crazy. The woman repeats it, now it's a fight. Come on, you don't see anything wrong with that?

But they aren't calling other people to F word. They use it in a non-percecutive way.

Gays and blacks are changing the context of these slurs.

Why is that so hard to understand?

It's used for solidarity, not persecution.

Assuming blacks and gays don't understand how to change the context of words is offensive.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Well back when I had more time I would always try to provide any relevant updates and still do sometimes when I can but anyone can post any relevant updates about a case here. There are many instances where a video goes viral sparking moral outrage everywhere and then come to find out 2-3 days later it wasn't the whole story. In this day and age it's bound to happen. But I would rather deal with not getting the facts straight at the get go in some cases and adjusting my opinion accordingly later than letting the real abuses just slide by because I want to wait until a formal investigation is done on the matter. I'd venture to say the majority of folks would agree with me on this

That's the catch, without the early outrage, a thorough investigation doesn't happen.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Docker you need to conform to the majority. Join them... join

What majority?

 

[Docker2.0]

Well back when I had more time I would always try to provide any relevant updates and still do sometimes when I can but anyone can post any relevant updates about a case here. There are many instances where a video goes viral sparking moral outrage everywhere and then come to find out 2-3 days later it wasn't the whole story. In this day and age it's bound to happen. But I would rather deal with not getting the facts straight at the get go in some cases and adjusting my opinion accordingly later than letting the real abuses just slide by because I want to wait until a formal investigation is done on the matter. I'd venture to say the majority of folks would agree with me on this

And I think that's the case with the girl in the pool. People just saw that cop going gong-ho and completely ignored what happened to get them there in the first place. Was he wrong? Sure but so was the other side as well. I do agree with BvS. It seems like people are treating this thread like Marvel vs DC. It's not always that black and white. The Cleveland kid? That was wrong! Trayvon Martin I think was wrong as well. Mike Brown? I honestly side with the cop on that one. This girl right here? They were both wrong, but he was more so wrong because he is in authority but again, he was under a lot of pressure in a stressful situation.

But they aren't calling other people to F word. They use it in a non-percecutive way.

Gays and blacks are changing the context of these slurs.

Why is that so hard to understand?

It's used for solidarity, not persecution.

Assuming blacks and gays don't understand how to change the context of words is offensive.

Dude, there's no excuse for using that word. None! For blacks, whites or latinos. I get what you are trying to say but to be honest it comes off as an excuse to justify the word being used by group a but blasting group b for saying it. It's wrong for everyone.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

And I think that's the case with the girl in the pool. People just saw that cop going gong-ho and completely ignored what happened to get them there in the first place. Was he wrong? Sure but so was the other side as well. I do agree with BvS. It seems like people are treating this thread like Marvel vs DC. It's not always that black and white. The Cleveland kid? That was wrong! Trayvon Martin I think was wrong as well. Mike Brown? I honestly side with the cop on that one. This girl right here? They were both wrong, but he was more so wrong because he is in authority but again, he was under a lot of pressure in a stressful situation.


Dude, there's no excuse for using that word. None! For blacks, whites or latinos. I get what you are trying to say but to be honest it comes off as an excuse to justify the word being used by group a but blasting group b for saying it. It's wrong for everyone.

Sure there's a reason to use it, unless you think certain minorities don't have the right to mold the English language for their own purposes.

Here's a colorful example of redirecting an insult:

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

UPDATE: Judge Finds Probable Cause to Charge Officer Who Killed Tamir Rice

A Cleveland judge said on Thursday that there’s probable cause to charge the police officer who last year fatally shot 12-year-old Tamir Rice with murder, manslaughter, and reckless homicide.

The Washington Post reports that Ronald B. Adrine, a Cleveland municipal judge, wrote in an order that Officer Timothy Loehmann should be charged with murder, involuntary manslaughter, and reckless homicide. Adrine also said that Officer Frank Garmback, Loehmann’s partner, should be charged with negligent homicide.

However, the decision doesn’t mean that either officer will be charged. “We are very much relieved and it is a step towards procedural justice and people having access to their government,” Walter Madison, an attorney for Rice’s family, told the Guardian.

Loehmann killed Rice, who was carrying a toy gun, just two seconds after arriving in a Cleveland park on November 22. Three years before the shooting, Loehmann was found unfit for duty by a smaller police force in Ohio.

UPDATE 6:08 pm: Prosecutor Timothy McGinty released a statement after the decision saying that he plans on taking the case before a grand jury. From the Washington Post:

In a statement released on Thursday evening, McGinty said he still plans to bring the case to a grand jury in order to determine whether or not to charge the officers.

“This case, as with all other fatal use of deadly force cases involving law enforcement officers, will go to the Grand Jury,” McGinty said. “Ultimately the grand jury decides whether police officers are charged or not charged.”​

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...use-for-murder-charge-in-tamir-rice-shooting/

If this guy gets off it is really going to piss me off

 

[Marvolo]

I have no desire to use or say the N word and whether black people use the word doesnt change that. If the black community want to repurpose and take ownership of a word that for hundreds of years has been used to degrade them Im fine with it. You know what Im not fine with? Anyone who isnt black and whos ancestors werent called that word daily and degraded by the word using said word. There are thousands of words in the english language. Use another one. I think white people will survive if they cant say a word that they once used to degrade an entire race of people.

 

[Teelie]

So you respond to a dismissive post with another dismissive post.

How about you explain how exactly my post failed to address his point, Mr. Vague.

Since you need a detailed explanation of the obvious, if you use a derogatory comment to the exclusion of others being allowed, you effectively state that only others of that group (be it whatever the group is, race, gender, ethnicity, orientation, etc) are different. Different often brings with it connotations of inferiority, fear, suspicion, all those nasty things you don't want to be associated with (there are so many examples of being different and persecuted for it I don't think I need to detail further).

You are not part of the greater whole and deliberately want to stand out from it. So you are in a sense making yourselves the outsiders purposefully. You don't integrate, you don't include (only exclude), you want your own world and you viciously attack anyone who attempts to integrate with it to the point of sometimes killing anyone who offends you.

And it brings further problems. How pure must you be to be allowed to be in that group? Is 50% enough? 25%? What if you don't "look" or "act" enough to be part of that group?

Is Barack Obama, who is half white, allowed to use that word? He might look black enough but he's clearly not the stereotypical user of such language. He might be seen as "too white." What about people who aren't ancestrally African but look it? Do they get a pass? Where does the definition of "(African) black enough" or "gay enough" or "female enough," "Jewish enough" and so on become the standard to use a slur against those who are in your group?

This is why making a word "yours" is destined to fail. When you appropriate something and react so aggressively to anyone else using it, you make it a reminder of an ugly past you cannot move beyond.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Since you need a detailed explanation of the obvious, if you use a derogatory comment to the exclusion of others being allowed, you effectively state that only others of that group (be it whatever the group is, race, gender, ethnicity, orientation, etc) are different. Different often brings with it connotations of inferiority, fear, suspicion, all those nasty things you don't want to be associated with (there are so many examples of being different and persecuted for it I don't think I need to detail further).

You are not part of the greater whole and deliberately want to stand out from it. So you are in a sense making yourselves the outsiders purposefully. You don't integrate, you don't include (only exclude), you want your own world and you viciously attack anyone who attempts to integrate with it to the point of sometimes killing anyone who offends you.

And it brings further problems. How pure must you be to be allowed to be in that group? Is 50% enough? 25%? What if you don't "look" or "act" enough to be part of that group?

Is Barack Obama, who is half white, allowed to use that word? He might look black enough but he's clearly not the stereotypical user of such language. He might be seen as "too white." What about people who aren't ancestrally African but look it? Do they get a pass? Where does the definition of "(African) black enough" or "gay enough" or "female enough," "Jewish enough" and so on become the standard to use a slur against those who are in your group?

This is why making a word "yours" is destined to fail. When you appropriate something and react so aggressively to anyone else using it, you make it a reminder of an ugly past you cannot move beyond.

Persecuted groups are allowed to have unifying terms they use exclusively with each other. Gays get to call each other gay slurs because the words become a sign of solidarity when used within the gay community.

The rules about who can use the N-word are pretty simple. If the blacks around you consider you black then it's safe to use the term because it won't be seen as persecution.

And people like to be reminded of past struggles, it keeps them aware of what is necessary for the future.

 

[Teelie]

There is a difference to being reminded and not letting it control you or describe you. And your "rule" there is also flawed. Say you have ten people, all are black, everyone acknowledges this. Six of them say it's okay, you are "black enough" but four of them say no, you aren't. You risk being offensive to 40% of the people. Is it still acceptable? Do you still get a pass or are the 4 who are offended allowed to react and beat you for using "their" word because you don't qualify?

I'm sure you can understand quite well that not everybody agrees on everything.

The original point I had was the words used to denigrate other people should not be used by anyone. It was never about "letting whiny white people" get to use it as you previously stated.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

http://gawker.com/heres-the-cias-just-released-top-secret-file-on-saudi-t-1710986289

 

[Docker2.0]

Persecuted groups are allowed to have unifying terms they use exclusively with each other. Gays get to call each other gay slurs because the words become a sign of solidarity when used within the gay community.

The rules about who can use the N-word are pretty simple. If the blacks around you consider you black then it's safe to use the term because it won't be seen as persecution.

And people like to be reminded of past struggles, it keeps them aware of what is necessary for the future.

I honestly don't know if you really believe what you are posting or just trolling us all. There is absolutely no use of that word by anyone.

Anyway, we can't change each other's mind so I'm moving on. Did you guys see the shootout in Dallas the police station? I'm actually surprised it doesn't happen more. I think what this guy did will spread because all it takes is one spark to start a fire and with the way the media has been getting people amped up against the police, it's only a matter of time.

 

[Alien Anal]

You have a stick and you beat someone with it and then when you decide that they have had enough you put the stick down and make a new rule that no one can pick that stick up anymore. Sounds fair

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I honestly don't know if you really believe what you are posting or just trolling us all. There is absolutely no use of that word by anyone.

Anyway, we can't change each other's mind so I'm moving on. Did you guys see the shootout in Dallas the police station? I'm actually surprised it doesn't happen more. I think what this guy did will spread because all it takes is one spark to start a fire and with the way the media has been getting people amped up against the police, it's only a matter of time.

So it's trolling to suggest groups of people can change a slur into a sign of solidarity? No, actually it's a fact.

It's actually condescending to assume groups who use slurs amongst each other are not sophisticated enough to alter the context of a slur.

But okay, lets move on since you're playing the "label the person I disagree with a troll" game.