Discussion: Racism - Part 1

[DeadPresident]

You say that because they're shedding light on events that affect your identity group. I struggle to take anyone seriously that claims ANY media outlet at the moment even knows what the "main tenets of true journalism" are. The media is a cash cow, they're generating content solely for the purpose of perpetuating their exorbitant revenue.

When the BLM and black American media fad stops getting as much attention they'll move onto the next tongue-wagger topic. Don't mistake their current coverage for integrity. It's not a conspiracy, it's for more basic than that, media outlets understand identity politics is a hot topic so they'll flood their networks with what gets people riled up and participating.

If all they showed were tornadoes ripping through houses and flinging cows and toddlers into skyscrapers at the frequency they show racial tensions you'd have every American citizen believing and convinced they're at immediate risk of being swept away. Level of media coverage =/= prevalence in a population, this is a conclusion many jump to for whatever reason.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

There's one out there on Youtube with a driver who drove through a group of idiot* protestors blocking an interstate for BLM. It's pretty gratifying to watch. t:

Spoiler

*Unnecessary Clarification: The word "idiot" placed in front of protestors is not meant to state that everyone who protests is an idiot. While I recognize the right and importance of peaceful protest, there should be no right to prevent the free movement of others in your protest. So, if you are involved in a protest and blocking traffic, pathways, building entrances and exits, etc., in a way that prevents non-protestors from moving about in a way they normally could, you're the "idiot" I'm referring to. In that instance, I'm all for drivers (slowly) running your blockade, police pepper-spraying you into dispersal, and so on.

You're no different from the people who wished harm on the civil rights protestors of the 60's.

They were considered by many to be annoying trouble makers.

It only became clear later to the vast majority that they were on the right side of history.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Mike Ditka: 'I have no respect for Colin Kaepernick'

Hall of Fame coach Mike Ditka didn't mince words when asked his opinion of San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem prior to NFL games.

"I think it's a problem ... anybody who disrespects this country and the flag," Ditka, an ESPN analyst, said during a radio interview Friday with 105.3 The Fan in Dallas. "If they don't like the country they don't like our flag ... get the hell out."

"I have no respect for Colin Kaepernick -- he probably has no respect for me, that's his choice," he added. "My choice is, I like this country, I respect our flag, and I don't see all the atrocities going on in this country that people say are going on."

A number of NFL players have joined Kaepernick in kneeling for the anthem, including his 49ers teammate Eric Reid and Arian Foster, Kenny Stills and Jelani Jenkins of the Miami Dolphins.

Women's soccer player Megan Rapinoe, who is white, has knelt during the national anthem as a show of support for Kaepernick, and the entire Indiana Fever team knelt and locked arms Wednesday night before the teams' first-round game in the WNBA playoffs.

"I see opportunities if people want to look for opportunity -- now if they don't want to look for them -- then you can find problems with anything," Ditka said. "But this is the land of opportunity because you can be anything you want to be if you work. If you don't work ... that's a different problem. "

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...h-mike-ditka-says-no-respect-colin-kaepernick

 

[Handsome Rob]

You're no different from the people who wished harm on the civil rights protestors of the 60's.

They were considered by many to be annoying trouble makers.

It only became clear later to the vast majority that they were on the right side of history.

Don't be so ignorant. I clearly stated that I am fine with peaceful protest. What I am NOT fine with is protest that interferes with the free movement and rights of others. If Civil Rights protestors did that, I'd have a problem with them. If they didn't, I wouldn't.

I'm not politically motivated in my beliefs on this. I don't care what the cause is. Get a bunch of Tea Partiers protesting and blocking traffic, and I'll be just as satisfied when someone in a car doesn't put up with that crap and drives (slowly) through them.

I doubt what I said will stop you from trying to infer some mustache-twirling, evil racist motives on my part, though . . . but, that's on you . . .

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

You say that because they're shedding light on events that affect your identity group. I struggle to take anyone seriously that claims ANY media outlet at the moment even knows what the "main tenets of true journalism" are. The media is a cash cow, they're generating content solely for the purpose of perpetuating their exorbitant revenue.

When the BLM and black American media fad stops getting as much attention they'll move onto the next tongue-wagger topic. Don't mistake their current coverage for integrity. It's not a conspiracy, it's for more basic than that, media outlets understand identity politics is a hot topic so they'll flood their networks with what gets people riled up and participating.

If all they showed were tornadoes ripping through houses and flinging cows and toddlers into skyscrapers at the frequency they show racial tensions you'd have every American citizen believing and convinced they're at immediate risk of being swept away. Level of media coverage =/= prevalence in a population, this is a conclusion many jump to for whatever reason.

I don't think it's that black and white. Obviously there are many media owners and managers obsessed with ratings and there are many also inside the news industry who studied journalism as their life passion and truely believe in uncovering corruption.

The truth is sometimes sensationalism and true journalism overlap.

Look at Edward Snowden. Clearly most powerful people would prefer a media black out but the story was so provocative many news outlets could no longer ignore it. Then you probably had journalist across the nation begging their bosses to run a Snowden story because they truly believe n exposing the truth and corruption.

And one could argue that even if the media's focus on police abuse was 100% motivated by greed that the unintentional result of police reform, exposed corruption, more transparency, etc is still essential to an open and free society.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Don't be so ignorant. I clearly stated that I am fine with peaceful protest. What I am NOT fine with is protest that interferes with the free movement and rights of others. If Civil Rights protestors did that, I'd have a problem with them. If they didn't, I wouldn't.

I'm not politically motivated in my beliefs on this. I don't care what the cause is. Get a bunch of Tea Partiers protesting and blocking traffic, and I'll be just as satisfied when someone in a car doesn't put up with that crap and drives (slowly) through them.

I doubt what I said will stop you from trying to infer some mustache-twirling, evil racist motives on my part, though . . . but, that's on you . . .

I am fine with peaceful protest BUT....

Every sit-in, every march through the streets (oh no the traffic), every Civil Rights protest was considered "disruptive". When that young black kids were simply trying to go to school, it was "disruptive". That you would have a problem with that... well yeah. I am sure protesting works when it doesn't disruptive the lives of those who don't need to protest for basic human rights.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Don't be so ignorant. I clearly stated that I am fine with peaceful protest. What I am NOT fine with is protest that interferes with the free movement and rights of others. If Civil Rights protestors did that, I'd have a problem with them. If they didn't, I wouldn't.

I'm not politically motivated in my beliefs on this. I don't care what the cause is. Get a bunch of Tea Partiers protesting and blocking traffic, and I'll be just as satisfied when someone in a car doesn't put up with that crap and drives (slowly) through them.

I doubt what I said will stop you from trying to infer some mustache-twirling, evil racist motives on my part, though . . . but, that's on you . . .

So there's nothing villainous about wishing injury on protestors who slow traffic.

Nothing at all. Okay buddy, sure.

Also the idea that people are driving through protestors at a snails pace is total bull. Most of the video circulating on social networking sites has drivers plowing through protestors at full speed.

That's why the videos are gaining attention because sadistic people enjoy seeing BLM protestors get rammed by speeding cars. A video where a car just softly taps a protestor isn't going to gain much attention so stop bulls***ing.

 

[Handsome Rob]

So there's nothing villainous about wishing injury on protestors who slow traffic.

Nothing at all. Okay buddy, sure.

Also the idea that people are driving through protestors at a snails pace is total bull. Most of the video circulating on social networking sites has drivers plowing through protestors at full speed.

That's why the videos are gaining attention because sadistic people enjoy seeing BLM protestors get rammed by speeding cars. A video where a car just softly taps a protestor isn't going to gain much attention so stop bulls***ing.

I'm pretty sure any speed you will deem as too fast, but search for "Angry SUV Driver Runs Through Black Lives Matter Protesters BLM" posted by The Daily Digest on Youtube. Start at about the 50 second mark. This is exactly what I believe drivers should do. Start slow and keep moving forward until people get out of the way.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I'm not denying that those occur and I'm not denying that institutional racism exists, or that it influences these interactions.

What I'm saying is the root cause is poverty, and the solution to the institutional racism is socioeconomic - not social. There are racist cops out there, that's a fact, and they reinforce and perpetuate their racism by targeting poor areas because crime is more prevalent in lower income areas all over the world, another fact.

The remedy for this isn't disciplining or re-socializing cops although that may help, the remedy for this is investing in lower income areas and getting all of black America in the middle class. Whoever wants to tell you there's a better way of solving this isn't actually interested in solving it; material circumstance is the most crucial factor of this discussion - it is the source. People can treat symptoms all they want, I believe the efficient way to solve it is by treating the cause, not the effects.

Poverty will always exist. The problem is stereotyping.

When all blacks are treated like criminals or poor people even when the vast majority are law abiding and live above the poverty level.

A black person in a nice car and neighborhood shouldn't have to fear the police but they often do.

 

[Schlosser85]

I'm with Handsome Rob as far as that goes, and I would hope I've been pretty strong in my condemnation of Crutcher's shooting.

 

[Schlosser85]

Poverty will always exist. The problem is stereotyping.

When all blacks are treated like criminals or poor people even when the vast majority are law abiding and live above the poverty level.

Not in Reality According to Donald Trump

 

[DeadPresident]

I don't think it's that black and white. Obviously there are many media owners and managers obsessed with ratings and there are many also inside the news industry who studied journalism as their life passion and truely believe in uncovering corruption.

The truth is sometimes sensationalism and true journalism overlap.

Look at Edward Snowden. Clearly most powerful people would prefer a media black out but the story was so provocative many news outlets could no longer ignore it. Then you probably had journalist across the nation begging their bosses to run a Snowden story because they truly believe n exposing the truth and corruption.

And one could argue that even if the media's focus on police abuse was 100% motivated by greed that the unintentional result of police reform, exposed corruption, more transparency, etc is still essential to an open and free society.

I think you're being very kind to the media here. Again, I agree with covering this and shedding light on it, but if the media actually had progress or some kind of constructive ends in mind they would be doing it differently. The media at the moment is that stupid kid with a cell phone recording a school yard fight and mumbling random nonsense under his breath and egging them on.

They're partially to blame for the heightened us vs. them dynamic plaguing US social discourse, they're not in this to uphold journalistic integrity, they're here to maintain their ratings. This whole situation needs to be managed in a far more mature and constructive manner, the USA's black community is being failed all the way from the President down to civil service providers, and a belligerent minority of their own community is turning people against them too.

Poverty will always exist. The problem is stereotyping.

When all blacks are treated like criminals or poor people even when the vast majority are law abiding and live above the poverty level.

Come on, man, you know for a fact that's not even vaguely within the realm of possibility. I know it happens at a prevalent rate, but things like this just further feed into the divisive narrative. Until we get hard data showing something one way or another just creating an opinion based on the skewed perception the media creates isn't a great idea.

And although poverty will always exist, decreasing the number of those who live in impoverished circumstance will do a lot in the way of addressing stereotypes, simply because more middle class lifestyles invariably end up with less crime worldwide.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I'm pretty sure any speed you will deem as too fast, but search for "Angry SUV Driver Runs Through Black Lives Matter Protesters BLM" posted by The Daily Digest on Youtube. Start at about the 50 second mark. This is exactly what I believe drivers should do. Start slow and keep moving forward until people get out of the way.

I shouldn't have to explain why bumping someone with 3 ton object at any speed is extremely dangerous, especially if the person is knocked to the ground.

 

[Schlosser85]

A motorist should have the right to continue on his way. People need their jobs, or for all you know they're going to see a dying relative in the hospital. You don't know where they're going or how badly they need to get there.

So frankly, cars should have the right to (slowly) keep moving forward and through the protest. I don't mean plowing through dozens of people at 45 miles an hour, I mean slowly crawling forward until they step aside and you pass through.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

A motorist should have the right to continue on his way. People need their jobs, or for all you know they're going to see a dying relative in the hospital. You don't know where they're going or how badly they need to get there.

So frankly, cars should have the right to (slowly) keep moving forward and through the protest. I don't mean plowing through dozens of people at 45 miles an hour, I mean slowly crawling forward until they step aside and you pass through.

That is fine band I agree. But placing people who do such protest in the horrible person bracket it way OTT.

 

[Handsome Rob]

I shouldn't have to explain why bumping someone with 3 ton object at any speed is extremely dangerous, especially if the person is knocked to the ground.

I shouldn't have to explain why a person illegally standing of one's own volition in front of a 3-ton vehicle when the driver of said vehicle has the legal authority to proceed forward on a roadway not intended for pedestrians is extremely dangerous.

But, here we are . . .

 

[chaseter]

All you're doing is proving teeth's point about this actually being a class issue and not a race issue - poverty is the underlying systemic variable, not race.

And although it's only a single incident moviedoors' post highlights again this isn't about race nearly as much as poverty.

Agree

 

[SuperAl]

I shouldn't have to explain why a person illegally standing of one's own volition in front of a 3-ton vehicle when the driver of said vehicle has the legal authority to proceed forward on a roadway not intended for pedestrians is extremely dangerous.

But, here we are . . .

not to mention the fact that the person in the vehicle is prolly a bit on edge strolling through a protest, whether violent or peaceful. Im sure if i was trying to get through a protest id be a bit panicky. judging from news stories out of Charlotte, a lot of vehicles where being pelting with rocks/bricks. im not really surprised that some people are being hit.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm not denying that those occur and I'm not denying that institutional racism exists, or that it influences these interactions.

What I'm saying is the root cause is poverty, and the solution to the institutional racism is socioeconomic - not social. There are racist cops out there, that's a fact, and they reinforce and perpetuate their racism by targeting poor areas because crime is more prevalent in lower income areas all over the world, another fact.

The remedy for this isn't disciplining or re-socializing cops although that may help, the remedy for this is investing in lower income areas and getting all of black America in the middle class. Whoever wants to tell you there's a better way of solving this isn't actually interested in solving it; material circumstance is the most crucial factor of this discussion - it is the source. People can treat symptoms all they want, I believe the efficient way to solve it is by treating the cause, not the effects.



No, I'm fairly familiar with it.

Is racism not what placed many black families in the position of poverty in the first place? This is a generational situation.

 

[SuperT]

Is racism not what placed many black families in the position of poverty in the first place? This is a generational situation.

Such a crucial thing for people to understand. Once again, people not only on here but everywhere, can't seem to grasp this idea. The effects of 100+ years of oppression didn't just vanish in the 60's, those effects are still being felt to this very day.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I think you're being very kind to the media here. Again, I agree with covering this and shedding light on it, but if the media actually had progress or some kind of constructive ends in mind they would be doing it differently. The media at the moment is that stupid kid with a cell phone recording a school yard fight and mumbling random nonsense under his breath and egging them on.

They're partially to blame for the heightened us vs. them dynamic plaguing US social discourse, they're not in this to uphold journalistic integrity, they're here to maintain their ratings. This whole situation needs to be managed in a far more mature and constructive manner, the USA's black community is being failed all the way from the President down to civil service providers, and a belligerent minority of their own community is turning people against them too.

One could say the same thing about news coverage of the Vietnam War. Simply showing the typical familiy the horrors of war caused a swell in the anti-establishment and anti-war movement that makes BLM look like a box of kittens.

Was exposing the truth about war worth the eventual social unrest?

I'd say so.

Come on, man, you know for a fact that's not even vaguely within the realm of possibility. I know it happens at a prevalent rate, but things like this just further feed into the divisive narrative. Until we get hard data showing something one way or another just creating an opinion based on the skewed perception the media creates isn't a great idea.

To clarify my statement: Any black person could potentially be treated like a criminal.

We live in a world where any black man in a nice car in an upscale neighborhood can still be seen as suspicious by a trigger happy cop.

And although poverty will always exist, decreasing the number of those who live in impoverished circumstance will do a lot in the way of addressing stereotypes, simply because more middle class lifestyles invariably end up with less crime worldwide.

Black poverty dropped from 55 percent in 1959 to 26 percent now.

Poverty dropped by over half and still there's no "nullifcation of negative stereotype" prize.

I'm not sure blacks will get this prize if they hit some arbitrary number.

 

[giveyourself12%]

Nope, the person with the gun has a greater responsibility to control their pride and emotions.

Would these cops be so trigger happy if their family members were being disobedient?

Nope, shooting would be the absolute last resort.

I agree with your last sentence. As for the rest, civilians do not and should not have a lesser responsibility to behave safely and calmly than police in any situation in which the civilian is an adult.

That's basically giving people the licence to act as recklessly as they want in a tense situation, which all traffic stops are, and tasking the officers with making it all work out ok for everyone no matter how aggressive or defiant the civilian acts.

Is that how you would operate if you were a cop?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I agree with your last sentence. As for the rest, civilians do not and should not have a lesser responsibility to behave safely and calmly than police in any situation in which the civilian is an adult.

That's basically giving people the licence to act as recklessly as they want in a tense situation, which all traffic stops are, and tasking the officers with making it all work out ok for everyone no matter how aggressive or defiant the civilian acts.

Is that how you would operate if you were a cop?

If I were a cop I'd rather be killed on duty than kill an innocent person.

How could anyone live with themselves killing a son, a brother, a husband and/or a father who did nothing wrong?

So basically I would treat suspects like most cops treat rich white ladies. Lots of negotiation and de-escalation and perhaps a tasering before any lethal force is considered.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I shouldn't have to explain why a person illegally standing of one's own volition in front of a 3-ton vehicle when the driver of said vehicle has the legal authority to proceed forward on a roadway not intended for pedestrians is extremely dangerous.

But, here we are . . .

If a kid runs in the street you're legally obligated to avoid hitting them rather than speed up. I'd imagine that obligation extends to other people as well.

It's not like BLM invented civil disobedience on a road way.

 

[Grievous]

You're no different from the people who wished harm on the civil rights protestors of the 60's.

They were considered by many to be annoying trouble makers.

It only became clear later to the vast majority that they were on the right side of history.

While I don't think it's right to simply run over someone. Those people were blocking a highway, they have no right to delay traffic like that regardless if they are right or wrong.

Any group that shuts down a highway should be arrested.